Debates of Nov. 26th, 2020

Health of Animals Act

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, on December 7, 2019, there was an incident in my riding.

Thirteen activists broke into the Porgreg pig farm. They occupied the farm for several hours to stage a protest, causing stress to the animals they claimed to be defending. They were completely oblivious to these farmers' reality and how they love their animals in many ways. This protest ultimately caused stress among the animals, leading to the death of several piglets who were crushed by the sows.

This was a very serious incident, which is why, on behalf of the victims of Porgreg farm in my riding, including both the farmers and the dead animals, the Bloc Québécois supports the principle of the bill before us. We are pleased to support it and completely agree with the principle.

That said, there is always the matter of shared jurisdictions. How can we address this issue, given that each province has its own animal welfare legislation?

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is exactly right. I have seen too many of these issues where the activists are showing pictures of dead animals. The Tschetter family is a perfect example. They had some turkeys that had passed away, but they were not dead when the protestors got there. What happens is protestors scare the animals, the animals scurry and often trample over their youth or smaller animals. The fatalities come from that.

I know the protestors have the right reasons at heart. They do not intend to hurt those animals, but, again, it is that misunderstanding of what happens when they go onto those farms. That is why we have proposed an amendment to the Health of Animals Act and not the Criminal Code, so we have something that will address a national viewpoint and not province to province.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for bringing forward the bill for us to consider. He correctly outlined the struggle that exists between the right of people to protest but also the rights of farmers to protect their property.

In the public's demand for greater transparency, does the member have any ideas on how we can build better trust between the public and farmers outside of the scope of the bill?

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Mr. Speaker, that is a fantastic question and I wish I had an answer to it. I am speaking from the heart when I say this. I respect the member a great deal and I have worked a lot with him at the agriculture committee.

We talk a lot about east versus west, but the biggest issue facing Canada right now is urban versus rural. There is a misunderstanding between urban Canadians and rural Canadians about where their food comes from, how we do it and why we do it. We do it better than anyone else in the world. We have to do a much better job, not only as parliamentarians but as Canadians, educating one another about modern Canadian agriculture. I look forward to having that opportunity to do so.

[Lianne Rood, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his bill. I also have farmers who have had protests on their farms in my riding of Lambton—Kent—Middlesex.

I would like to ask him a quick question. Would the bill also protect the health and welfare of animals at fairs and rodeos? I have a lot of those in my riding as well. Could he clarify that?

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the shadow minister for agriculture and agri-food for all her great work. I appreciate her support on crafting this bill.

Yes, is the short answer. All of us have rodeos, farmers' markets and fairs within our ridings. Any enclosed space, whether on a farm, at a fair or in transport, is addressed in the bill and is encompassed by the amendment to the Health of Animals Act.

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for Foothills for introducing Bill C-205 so that we can talk about it.

I know that the bill was introduced to support biosecurity on Canadian farms and other establishments, which is a laudable objective.

I believe I speak for everyone when I say that Canadian consumers are engaged consumers. They care deeply about where their food comes from and whether it is safe.

I am pleased to report that Canada has one of the best food safety systems in the world, and we continued to maintain that high confidence level in our food safety system during the COVID-19 pandemic.

In April, the Government of Canada announced $20 million in funding for the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, or CFIA, to support critical food inspection during the pandemic to ensure that Canadians would have continued access to safe, high-quality food.

In my opinion, our country's high level of food safety and security can be attributed to the ongoing work of the CFIA and the robust biosecurity measures in place on Canadians farms and other establishments.

It is important to note that the health of animals and biosecurity measures, as was discussed in the speech by the member for Foothills and in the question and answer period, are a shared jurisdiction between the federal government, the provinces and the territories.

I want to take a moment to talk about the role of the CFIA and the Government of Canada in relation to the topic we are discussing tonight, a very important topic I might add.

CFIA enforces regulations concerning the transportation of animals. The government introduced the health of animals transport regulations in February. It is also concerned with the humane treatment of animals at federally licensed abattoirs, or slaughterhouses.

The member for Foothills talked about education between rural and urban. There is a difference between provincial abattoirs, or slaughterhouses, that are licensed to provide meat products within those provincial or territorial boundaries and the federal licensing system, where the meat that is processed goes across the country. Therefore, it is important to recognize that there is concurrent jurisdiction in relation to these two domains.

The provinces also have the ability to introduce their own regulations as it relates to the health of animals regulations and biosecurity.

I will leave it up to my colleagues to elaborate on the strong biosecurity measures already in place on Canadian farms and facilities as well as the jurisdictional aspects and existing legal instruments.

I want to focus on the Health of Animals Act. I ask that all members be patient as I will be discussing some rather technical concepts.

The Health of Animals Act was enacted in 1990. It repealed and replaced the previous act, the Animal Disease and Protection Act.

The Health of Animals Act is enforced by the Canada Food Inspection Agency.

With respect to the real purpose of the Health of Animals Act, its long title is “An Act respecting diseases and toxic substances that may affect animals or that may be transmitted by animals to persons, and respecting the protection of animals”. Section 34 is the primary authority in the Health of Animals Act for making regulations. This section gives the Governor in Council, or the minister, the authority to make regulations for the protection and health of persons and animals by controlling or eliminating diseases and toxic substances, and for the carrying out of any other purposes under the act.

I want to highlight for all of my colleagues in the House and, indeed, all Canadians watching that three objectives are revealed by these three provisions, the underlying goals of the act. The first is to prevent or control the spread of diseases that may affect animals; the second is to prevent or control the spread of diseases that may be transmitted to humans by animals, which are called zoonotic diseases; and the third is to protect animals from inhumane treatment. There are provisions related to this objective found under part XII of the health of animals regulations, which deals with the humane transportation of animals.

I will talk specifically about the contents of Bill C-205. One thing that needs to be fleshed out in this discussion, and I look forward to my colleagues' thoughts on this, is whether CFIA would have an additional role. The member for Foothills gave examples of where the behaviour of individuals, activists and protestors on farms was creating challenges. He mentioned Ontario and Alberta as two examples, and perhaps there are others, that have introduced provincial legislation in this sphere, but there was not a whole lot of conversation on who enforces this. Is this being done by police or CFIA, given the fact that it has the explicit responsibility for this act?

Something we need to consider is whether that would be an expectation of CFIA, whether it would be given a larger mandate and be required to have additional personnel who would also be responsible on farm, because right now it is largely maintained among the federal abattoir-inspected facilities. I asked the member for Foothills about this and in his remarks, which I do not have right in front of me, he said that many of these activists do not know what they are walking into or they are not aware.

I will read the provision that he is suggesting we add to the legislation. It says:

No person shall, without lawful authority or excuse, enter a building or other enclosed place in which animals are kept knowing that or being reckless as to whether entering such a place could result in the exposure of the animals to a disease or toxic substance

My concern is if the member for Foothills is correct in saying that the majority of people do not know about this when they go on farm and the provision is that they had to know about or ought to have known about it, it may be a difficult threshold for us to make meaningful change on these pieces, but perhaps that could be studied at committee, assuming that it passes to that level.

I want to highlight a few things. There are strong biosecurity measures already in place on Canadian farms and other establishments. The member for Foothills himself acknowledged the good work that Canadian farmers do along with industry, in co-operation with the federal, provincial and territorial governments.

It is up for debate, but there are legal instruments already in place to perhaps deal with the issue around whether the provinces have the ability to introduce these types of legislation, as some provinces have already done. There are provisions under the Criminal Code. It is up for debate and I look forward to hearing other members' thoughts on whether prosecutors, who try to prosecute on these particular grounds, believe they have the tools to successfully have a prosecution in these circumstances, which I would agree are unfortunate and cannot continue.

The Health of Animals Act, which is where it is suggested this particular legislation be added, the private member's bill, is designed to protect the health of animals. I do not think anyone would question that is not a good intent, but I do not know if it is intended to be used as a mechanism to crack down on trespassers. That is why I asked the member for Foothills about whether there has been a connection between a biosecurity risk and trespassing on farm. I do not know what that information is. I asked that in earnest. I hope it is a point that we can discuss in the House, because this bill is an important piece of consideration for agriculture communities.

I want to bring in the Nova Scotia context very quickly. I am in one of the heaviest agriculture ridings in Atlantic Canada, in Kings—Hants. This has been mentioned by my stakeholders and that is why I have the privilege of being able to speak to this tonight. Speaking on behalf of the government, it does appreciate that the incursion on farms and biosecurity facilities can potentially result in the introduction of concerns and we look forward to hearing more of the debate tonight.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will start by thanking my colleague for introducing this bill. As my colleague from Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot said, we will support it.

I will start with a question. At times, we might wonder if something that happened to us has also happened to someone else. For example, has anyone here ever experienced a break-in?

One of my colleagues raised a hand. I was not really expecting an answer, but I thank him for that information.

I have experienced a break-in, and I know it can change a person's life. It had a psychological impact on my sense of safety and consequences for my belongings. Nothing I took for granted was guaranteed anymore. I was worried about my family's safety 24/7. I was distressed and did not know what to believe. Personally, I think such an event changes a person's life, changes their habits.

Now imagine that the future of one's own business is at stake, that thousands of dollars are at stake or that the break-in makes one responsible for disease or for not having taken proper care of one's business.

Colleagues mentioned it earlier, including my colleague from Kings—Hants, whom I commend for his remarkable efforts to speak French. I tip my hat to him. Even though the Liberal Party does not have any tangible measures at least there are people in the Liberal Party making a serious effort. I encourage the hon. member to have a positive influence within his party.

As agriculture critic, when we would tour farms or processing plants before COVID-19, we would have to wear plastic from head to toe and wear a mask. People would have to remove their jewellery. They do not ask people to do that just for kicks. They do this for the sake of biosafety.

This bill is very serious and extremely important. It makes it an offence to enter, without lawful authority or excuse, a place in which animals are kept if doing so could result in the exposure of the animals to a disease or toxic substance that is capable of affecting or contaminating them. A disease or toxic substance may be introduced by a well-meaning person who wants to water an animal with an outside source that was not subject to quality control. As such the person might jeopardize the entire herd. Let's not forget the people who go near an abattoir or a farm to protest.

As my esteemed colleague warned us earlier, this is not about preventing people from expressing an opinion or protesting, quite the contrary. We live in a country that affords its people a lot freedoms that all parliamentarians here respect and want to continue to respect.

However, we must not lose sight of the basics, such as private property, biosecurity or the food security of our people; these are concerns that we have become extra sensitive to, particularly during this pandemic. It is therefore extremely important to take action, and here is why.

The Canadian Food Inspection Agency's mandate on animal welfare is limited to regulating the humane treatment and transportation of food-producing animals when they are at the slaughterhouse or on the way there. As another colleague mentioned earlier, it is about preventing disease.

It is complementary, but I think the proposed legislation is necessary because it will add to and clarify the consequences. What I like about this bill is that it contains concrete measures, such as prison sentences and significant fines.

We have heard all kinds of stories about things that happened in Quebec and elsewhere in Canada. Farmers and restaurateurs do not dare report incidents because they figure that if they get mad, they will come back. The government does not have the right to not ensure people's safety. The government certainly does not have the right to not ensure the safety of farmers, the people who feed us.

This does not take away anyone's right to protest. People can protest in the street with placards and on social media. All we are saying is that there must be no unjustified intrusions without appropriate precautions being taken.

I am sure that if these people want to visit facilities, they will find businesses that are willing and all the necessary precautions will be taken, just like the precautions that we as parliamentarians take when we visit farms and we don plastic from head to toe. Farmers are transparent. They have nothing to hide. That is the essence of Bill C-205.

I want to come back to the incident that happened in Quebec nearly a year ago, in December 2019. My colleague from Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot talked about it earlier. It had to do with Porgreg, in the Saint-Hyacinthe region. Those individuals were incredibly courageous, speaking out publicly with the Union des producteurs agricoles du Québec, out of a sense of duty to serve the public. Despite the fear of reprisals, they did it for the public good.

In Quebec, this resulted in a temporary injunction prohibiting protesters from getting within a certain distance of farms, so as to ensure the safety not only of livestock, but also of property owners and businesses.

The piglets that died were mentioned earlier, but we did not hear about the disease that ensued. Rotavirus spread throughout the facility shortly after the trespass. Farm officials said they had not seen that disease for 40 years. How could one file a complaint and prove that the protesters brought in the disease? It would be very difficult. That is the problem. The proposed regulations will give some clout to people who might want to take action in that kind of situation. I am running out of time, but I could probably talk about it for a good half hour.

Leaving the doors of a hog barn open when it is -12°C outside is reckless. People were there all day. The police were called in to evacuate them one by one. I will come back to my anecdote from earlier. Imagine coming home and realizing that you have been burglarized and, to make matters worse, the burglars are sitting in the living room. Then imagine that the police tell you that it is a tough call because they did not break anything and no one can prove that they were the ones who stole the merchandise. At Porgreg, they put water in the diesel. It is appalling. We have to put ourselves in the farmers' shoes.

We have to adopt this measure because it is simply logical. Yes, there are jurisdictions to consider. We are very aware of that and we will be careful, but I think this bill deserves to be studied further because it is essential. Imagine not having any recourse against people sitting down in our own home. We have to adopt this measure now to avoid unfortunate events. I do not want to scare anyone, but we want to avoid that.

When one's own business is put at risk by a group of total strangers who came from another province, the interprovincial regulations become very important. It is important that we adopt this measure. The Bloc Québécois will support this bill. When the bill is a good bill, the Bloc Québécois will vote for it. I urge those who brought forward this bill to do the same for the bills we are introducing.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to also offer my congratulations to the member for Foothills for bringing forward Bill C-205 for the House's consideration and debate. I enjoyed working with the member for Foothills when he was previously a member of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food, of which I have now been a member for almost three years, going back into the previous Parliament. Maybe we will be able to invite the member back to the committee, this time as a witness to defend his bill.

I am quite excited about this because in the almost-three years that I have been a member of that committee, I have not yet had the chance to examine any legislation at the committee. It is actually exceedingly rare that the agriculture committee gets to examine legislation, and we may in fact now have two bills headed our way, both Bill C-206 and Bill C-205, so it is going to keep us quite busy in the short term.

The legislation that we have before us, Bill C-205, an act to amend the Health of Animals Act, is essentially centred on the danger that exists from potentially exposing animals on a farm to disease or to a toxic substance. Before I get into the particulars of the bill, it might be helpful just to spend a few moments talking about biosecurity and why it is so important for farms. Therefore, I will talk a bit about the experiences I have personally had here in my riding.

I have had the pleasure of visiting a couple of farms in my riding, and I will identify two of them: Lockwood Farms and Farmer Ben's Eggs. They are both fantastic egg producers in my riding.

Because I have a small flock of chickens myself, one of the strict requirements was that I have no contact with my own chickens for an entire week before I visited those farms because there is a very real danger that I could unwittingly, or through negligence, transfer diseases like avian flu. I also have a flock of ducks. For anyone who manages fowl, there is a real understanding that disease is prevalent and it is quite a danger, so there was that requirement before I even visited the farm. Of course, when I was there, we had to take great care to make sure that our footwear was clean, that we put on disposable booties and wore the gowns and the hairnets, before we actually went into the barn to look at their egg production facility.

When in the barn, we get a sense of why this is necessary. First, avian flu is a very contagious disease and if it were to go through the flock, it would be absolutely devastating. Any farmer whose livelihood depends on animals, whether livestock or poultry, will tell you that their first and primary care is focused on the well-being of their animals. They literally stay up at night wondering about all the dangers that could come, and biosecurity is a huge part of that.

Another experience I had, going back a few years to a previous life, was when I was a tree planter. One of my tree planting contracts was near Merritt at the Douglas Lake Ranch. It is one of the largest working cattle ranches in the interior of British Columbia and their lands are so vast that they actually lease them out to logging companies. They do selective harvesting of their lands and, as a tree planting company, we were brought in to reforest. When I was doing the reforestation, there was a real danger of foot and mouth disease, so before we were allowed entry onto the lands, we had to have our vehicles wiped down, the wheels hosed off and all of our footwear hosed off with cleaning agents to make sure that we were not inadvertently transferring the disease.

All of these examples just help to illustrate the very real concern that exists out there with biosecurity.

Given the fact that international trade is such a huge part of agriculture, we have seen many diseases and pests come from other parts of the world, diseases and pests that are novel to the Canadian environment and pose a very real risk. I have spoken to researchers at Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, and the number of new diseases and pests entering our borders every year really does keep them up at night. It is an ongoing battle to try to make sure that they're coming up with the best practices and best defences against those diseases.

I also want to highlight the important role that animal rights organizations play. As the member for Foothills correctly noted in his speech, the vast majority of them have the best interests of the animals at heart. Their ultimate goal is to make sure that we have a farming system in place that is treating our animals with respect and making sure that the standards of care are there.

What we face, and I think the member illustrated it very well in his speech, is the balance that we have to have between the public's right to know, the transparency we want to see and the right to protest, and the rights of a farmer to secure his or her property from trespassers, people who may not know how the farming operation works and may not know about the dangers they might be carrying, just simply on the soles of their feet. They could be transporting diseased soil or something in some food they are carrying, and these are all very real dangers for the reasons that I illustrated previously.

That is the balance we are confronting through the legislation we are considering. In Canadian law, when it comes to animal welfare, it is primarily our provinces that have jurisdiction over protecting the welfare of animals. Here in British Columbia, depending on what the case is, we have the B.C. SPCA. They do farm inspections. We also have visits from officials from the B.C. Ministry of Agriculture.

Going to Bill C-205 and what it is doing, for the the next part of my speech, I just want to highlight the provisions that currently exist in the federal statute that is the Health of Animals Act. If we go through the existing act, we can see that there are number of sections within the act that are already seeking to prohibit. For example, people are not allowed to conceal a reportable disease or toxic substance. People are not allowed to keep diseased animals. People are not allowed to bring them to market or to dispose of them improperly, or to let them out. These are all prohibited actions and they come with some pretty severe fines and penalties, because we are essentially trying to prevent those types of actions from occurring.

Where Bill C-205 steps in is that it is going to insert a new section 9.1, which is aiming to prohibit the entry of persons into a building where animals are kept, if by knowingly doing so or if they were reckless in doing so could potentially expose those animals to disease or a toxic substance. This is important. If the ultimate goal here is the welfare of animals, a person may have noble intentions and may want to see if the animals are being taken care of, but by doing so they may in fact be doing more harm than good.

Again, I understand the struggle that is out there, the debate that is going on with the public's right to know, but it has to be balanced against the very real consequences that those actions bring about. As the NDP's critic for agriculture and agri-food, I support the bill. I support the principle behind it. I believe that the bill does merit further study at the committee. That is why I will be looking forward to voting for it.

In closing, I have received correspondence from concerned people from across the country who are worried that the bill might serve as an effective gag against their right to protest. What I would say in reply to that is that if we look at the specific wording of this act, it is talking about a person entering without lawful authority or excuse. There is nothing in the bill to prevent a whistle-blower, like a farm employee, who is already lawfully there and who witnesses something that they believe is wrong or contrary to animal welfare laws, from blowing the whistle and raising the alarm on that.

Perhaps what the bill may serve to do is to have a broader conversation on how we instill that public trust and build that kind of transparency so that people understand what farming is all about and the struggles that farmers go through, and also give farmers a chance to inform the public of how a farm operates and what measures they try to put in place to look after their animals.

I will conclude there. I will just congratulate the member for Foothills again for bringing forward the legislation. I hope it is sent to committee so that we can take a further look at it.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Before we go to resuming debate and the hon. member for Northumberland—Peterborough South, I will let him know that we are just shy of the normal 10 minutes that would available for him for his speech in this hour. Of course, whatever time is left that he is unable to get to will be carried over into the next hour of debate on the motion that is before the House.

We will go to resuming debate. I will give the member the usual signal when we get close to the time that is allowed, and we will conclude at that point.

The hon. member for Northumberland—Peterborough South.

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I too would like to congratulate the member for Foothills on his excellent private member's bill.

Before I get into the heart of my speech, there are a couple of arguments that I think are misplaced. Quite frankly, I am a bit frustrated, as over the last couple of days I have been involved in private member's bills that were designed to help the agriculture industry, and we have received support and constructive feedback from both the Bloc Québécois as well as the NDP. I have to say I am a little disappointed in the Liberal Party and in its response to our supporting rural agriculture.

Specifically, I would like to address a couple of things that have come up. One is that this is absolutely an area of federal jurisdiction. It is co-jurisdiction, but the federal government has the right. Currently in some of the provincial legislation that would attempt to prevent some of the conduct that is contemplated in this legislation, some of the penalties are less than stringent. Therefore, this federal legislation, which is definitely within the jurisdiction, is also warranted.

Secondly, the member for Kings—Hants brought up the idea that maybe animal activists will not know about this law, and asked how we could put this law in place. The reality is that there is an old common-law principle that is hundreds of years old that says ignorance of the law is not an excuse. We must be aware of the law. It is part of being a citizen of a country.

Finally, the other subject he brought up was the idea that, and he did ask it earnestly and I do respect that, whether for one of these biosecurity lapses, protestors had created an outbreak or the spread of a disease, and whether there was evidence of this. I would say, respectfully, to him that before COVID there was no COVID. Before the Holocaust there was no Holocaust. We need to get ahead of things; we cannot stay behind them. The reality is that, whether this has occurred in the past or not, there is the very real opportunity for this to occur, which it appears all parties acknowledge. Therefore, we need to be ahead of these things, not behind them.

At this point, I would like to get into the meat of my speech. I can say with great pride that I am the member of Parliament for Northumberland—Peterborough South, a predominantly rural riding where we have, I believe, some of the best farmers in our country. I am honoured to rise in the House for the second time this week to speak in support of the amazing hard work farmers do across Canada.

Canadians should all be proud of the amazing work our agriculture sector does. We have incredibly difficult and stringent regulations, which farmers across our country meet every day to make sure that Canadians have the safest, most secure food supply in the world. Whether it be growing grain on the Prairies, produce out in the beautiful province of British Columbia or raising livestock in my province of Ontario, Canadians can rest assured that every step is being taken by our farmers to make sure that food is safe and secure.

We have talked about biosecurity in Canada, but I would just like to take a half-step back and explain, at least in accordance with the Province of Ontario, what biosecurity is. Biosecurity is defined at the farm level as a management practice enabling producers to prevent the movement of disease-causing agents onto and off of agricultural operations. This includes environmental contamination. Biosecurity, therefore, involves many aspects of farm management, such as disease control and prevention, closed-herd vaccination, nutrient management and visitor control. Although controlling and limiting the movement of livestock is recognized as the most important biosecurity measure for most diseases, many important hazards can be carried on contaminated clothing, boots, equipment and vehicles.

While many people outside of the agricultural industry may not yet be aware of the issue of biosecurity, it has become a major concern within the industry as a result of the foreign and emergent diseases that are increasing public concerns over food safety and the globalization of agriculture.

I would like to comment on the question addressed by the member for Foothills.

There is unfortunately a divide between rural and urban Canada. Hopefully this speech and legislation helps to bridge it. As someone who is in rural Canada, I invite every member of Parliament, whether Liberal, NDP or Green, to come out to rural Canada. I would be happy to show everyone around my farm and the farms in my area. We would, of course, abide by all appropriate measures.

The concerns of biosecurity will only grow as we have greater farm and population density. This will increase the relevance and salience of biosecurity concerns.

In my opinion, the passing of Bill C-205, an act to amend the Health of Animals Act, is long overdue. This is an issue that all Canadians should care about. I hope to see all my colleagues join me and the member for Foothills in supporting this important legislation.

The protection of biosecurity on farms has always been an important issue for farmers across the globe, but perhaps it has never been more salient than right now. There are currently no provisions at the federal level to protect our farmers, and the incredible products they produce, from trespassers, who may pass on an array of various diseases to their livestock.

Meanwhile, we are becoming increasingly aware of many diseases plaguing our farmers and animals across the globe. I want to give an example: African swine fever. Of course, the member for Foothills talked about this. This is a very real concern for Canadian farmers.

I want to tell the story of Chen Yun, a pork farmer in Jiangxi, China. He noticed that one of his pigs had stopped eating. Shortly after, it developed a fever. He was concerned, so he checked on the rest of his pigs. Within a week, all 10,000 of his pigs had died of African swine fever. This virus is highly contagious and affected every province in China, and it led to the slaughter of half of Chinese pigs.

Soon after the outbreak, the fever spread from China to Southeast Asia to central Europe, where it has now reached Belgium. This virus shows the importance of biosecurity and why this legislation is very important.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

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.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

Health

[Paul Manly, Green, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians are waiting for a COVID-19 vaccine to help control the spread of the virus and protect our most vulnerable citizens. The vaccine needs to be free for Canadians, it needs to be effective and it needs to be safe.

In my question to the government, I asked if it was time to return to the model of publicly owned laboratories to develop low-cost medicines and vaccines to serve the greater good. In his response, the minister put forward a list of corporations that have received government funding for vaccine initiatives. That did not answer my question.

The government has reserved 414 million doses of COVID-19 vaccines with six private sector contracts. We still do not know how much this will cost taxpayers, but we do know that none of the vaccines will be produced here and that Canadians will have to wait for our supply. I ask members to imagine how different our situation would be if the vaccines were being produced here at a government-owned lab, where public health is the motive instead of profit.

For 70 years, government-owned Connaught Medical Research Laboratories developed low-cost vaccines and other medicines for Canadians. It was established in Toronto in 1914 by Dr. John FitzGerald to produce the diphtheria vaccine. FitzGerald struck a deal with the University of Toronto to house the lab. As a non-commercial entity, all proceeds were dedicated to the improvement of public health and education.

Before the establishment of Connaught Labs, Canadians were reliant on expensive vaccines and medicines produced in the United States, a situation that echoes where we are today. After the discovery of insulin at the University of Toronto, Connaught Labs expanded to manufacture and distribute, at cost, in Canada and overseas. Connaught produced typhus vaccines, polio vaccines and penicillin. It created mass-production techniques that played a crucial role in reducing diseases around the world. Its work saved millions of lives.

Connaught was a proud Canadian success story, but in 1972 it was sold to the federally owned Canada Development Corporation by the Liberal government. A for-profit model was imposed, prices were increased and manufacturing standards were lowered. In 1986, after years of lobbying from the private sector, the Conservative government sold Connaught to a private corporation, ending the era of non-profit government-supported medical development for the public interest.

It is all about the free market and corporate profits now. We still have publicly funded universities doing research, but the breakthroughs and developments achieved in these labs are exploited for profit, not public health. Where is the return on that public investment?

Canada needs a universal pharmacare program, and the government has promised to introduce it. We are the only country with universal medicare that does not have a universal pharmacare program as well. The cost of visiting a doctor is covered but the treatment they prescribe is not.

As the cost of medication grows increasingly more expensive, many people are forced to choose between filling their prescriptions and paying their rent or putting food on the table. When people cannot afford their prescriptions, they often end up in the hospital, which is far more costly for all of us. This is not acceptable in a country as wealthy as Canada.

Re-establishing publicly funded labs based on the Connaught model would ensure that universal pharmacare is affordable for Canadians, not a cash cow for the pharmaceutical industry. Let us work together toward this sensible solution.

[Ali Ehsassi, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Innovation]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to respond to the comments by the hon. member for Nanaimo—Ladysmith regarding COVID-19. Let me be clear. The health and safety of Canadians is our government's top priority. The government is focused on, and is implementing, every possible solution to deliver safe and effective vaccines and treatments to all Canadians.

It has taken rapid action to deploy policy and program instruments to support vaccine development and manufacturing capabilities in Canada. We have established and mobilized extraordinary partnerships with industry, academia and research institutions to fight COVID-19, the most significant global health challenge in recent history.

Since the beginning of the pandemic, the government's efforts have focused on a comprehensive made in Canada approach to harness world-renowned Canadian ingenuity and innovation to address this crisis. The government has made investments that are accelerating the development of vaccines and therapeutics in Canada and are strengthening our national biomanufacturing capabilities.

A signature investment is the $175.6 million provided to Vancouver-based AbCellera to advance its therapy discovery platform and to establish a good manufacturing practice facility right here in Canada. This Canadian company's technology is helping advance a world leading monoclonal antibody treatment for COVID-19 in partnership with U.S.-based Eli Lilly.

The government's investments also include up to $173 million for Quebec City-based Medicago, which is pioneering a virus-like particle vaccine created on the company's unique plant-based technology platform. The government's contributions provide funding to Medicago so it can develop its vaccine candidate through all phases of clinical trials and so it can expand its manufacturing capacity to establish a new, large-scale good manufacturing processing facility right here in Canada.

Another innovative vaccine investment is up to $18.2 million in contributions to Precision NanoSystems Inc., a Vancouver-based company. Precision NanoSystems is working on a novel messenger RNA vaccine candidate and has created lipid nanoparticle technology that provides Canada with a distinct technological advance in the global arena. The government's investments in these projects are growing Canada's capabilities in the most sophisticated vaccine and therapeutics technology and helping solidify world-leading clusters across the country. Among others, I would like to reference messenger RNA vaccines and associated technologies as key examples.

However, the development of vaccines is complicated. It depends on supply chains and requires biomanufacturing assets to serve as a safety net in case of unforeseen disruptions to the global production network. For this reason, the government is taking concrete steps to strengthen domestic biomanufacturing capacity. We are doing so not only to reinforce Canada's ability to deliver vaccines and therapeutics for Canadians in the near term, as part of our fight against COVID-19, but also to develop our country's capacity for the future.

A major investment in this area is the expansion of the new Biologics Manufacturing Centre at the National Research Council of Canada's Royalmount site in Montreal which, I might add, is well under way. Once operational, this facility will have—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

We are at the end of time.

We will go back to the hon. member for Nanaimo—Ladysmith.

[Paul Manly, Green, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. parliamentary secretary for his response. The belief that the private sector in a free market can do everything better than the government is a bankrupt idea. Connaught Labs was proof. It provided affordable medicines and vaccines that saved lives and made Canada a world leader in public health. The free market has brought us more expensive medicines and a focus on profit.

Canada needs a universal pharmacare system and a publicly owned model of medicine, development and production will make it affordable. Privatizing Connaught Labs put us farther behind in our fight against COVID-19. It is time to go back to a common-sense model that serves the common good.

[Ali Ehsassi, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is important to keep in mind the human cost of this pandemic. The government owes it to those on our front lines who are selflessly helping Canadians suffering from this virus. Now is the time to come together with determination to swiftly advance a comprehensive approach and strengthen our capabilities to put an end to this global pandemic.

With a surge in the number of cases, Canada cannot be complacent. We must continue our efforts to manage, control and defeat the pandemic. Investments made under the made in Canada initiative will help restart Canada's economy, end the pandemic and put our country on a higher trajectory of growth and innovation.

Foreign Affairs

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am following up tonight, seeking further information about the government's failure to respond in a serious way to the strategic and security challenge presented to our interests and values by the Government of China.

What we are seeing right now from the government, in terms of its China policy, is a significant shift in rhetoric, but barely a blip of change in substance. When the Liberals became the government, they trumpeted a new golden age with China. They also criticized the previous Conservative government for blowing hot and cold with China. The implication was, I suppose, that there was something wrong with a policy that was a mixture of warmth and pressure. Instead, they wanted to pursue a policy that was all hot and no cold. That was where they started: all hot and no cold.

Today the Liberals say that our relationship with China is complex and multi-dimensional, involving areas of co-operation and areas of conflict. This seems to me to be another way of saying that now they have decided that blowing hot and cold is not such a bad idea after all. Aside from the change in rhetoric, we have not seen any change in policy. The National Post has reported that a new China policy was brought to cabinet and rejected, so now we have a new slogan, but no new policy.

The government trumpets its suspension of the extradition treaty with Hong Kong. This is, though, the lowest of the low-hanging fruit and nobody was on the verge of being, or likely to be, extradited to Hong Kong anyway. Let us not forget that this is the same government that announced exploratory discussions with China about an extradition agreement with the mainland a few short years ago.

Liberals are sending their thoughts and prayers to Uighur Muslims in concentration camps. They say they are deeply disturbed and they are doing absolutely nothing. Their so-called immigration program for people from Hong Kong does not apply to the vast majority of democracy advocates, since most face charges that are not directly related to the national security law.

On the substance, Liberals have refused to impose Magnitsky sanctions against human rights abusers in China, refused to expel diplomats who are found threatening or intimidating Canadians, refused to stop Huawei infiltration of our networks in a timely manner and refused to withdraw from the neo-colonial Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank.

Why are we still funding the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank? Why are we sending cheques to a Chinese state-controlled development bank which is building pipelines in Central Asia to advance China's foreign policy goals?

The Liberal Minister of International Development once tweeted that she wanted to “landlock Alberta's tar sands”, yet she has no problem funding the construction of pipelines for China and calling it international development.

On the issue of foreign interference, I have just introduced Motion No. 55, designed to push the government to provide meaningful protection and support for Canadians who are victims of foreign-state-backed interference, including from China. Liberals say that foreign interference in Canada is unacceptable, but they are doing absolutely nothing about it. Victims testified on the Hill today that they have gotten the runaround, calling different agencies and being sent to other agencies without the kind of support and assistance that they need when faced with planned attacks by foreign states on themselves and on their activities.

When it comes to foreign interference, Liberals are like parents who tell their child not to take extra snacks and then, when their child takes a snack anyway, they just shrug and ignore it. Expressing opposition to a behaviour and then ignoring it when it happens is no way to build credibility, as a parent or as a country.

The Minister of Foreign Affairs does not have a new China policy. All he has is a new slogan: firm and smart. “Firm and smart” is what the Liberals say. Offering modest criticism of Chinese government policy, while refusing to act to block it and continuing to fund the PRC's neo-colonial policy, is neither firm nor smart. Sadly, the Liberals' China policy is not firm and smart. It is soft and stupid.

[Ali Ehsassi, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Innovation]

Mr. Speaker, in recent years, Canada has observed, with great dismay, a steady decline in the fundamental rights and freedoms of the people of Hong Kong.

On June 30, the Chinese government imposed a national security law on Hong Kong without engaging Hong Kong's own institutions. The lack of clear definitions and acts of territorial application of the national security law to persons outside Hong Kong, among other concerns, has put Canadian citizens at risk.

We are not about slogans. We have taken concrete action. In response to these developments, on July 3, Canada undertook a series of bold measures to safeguard our interests and the safety of Canadians. The three principle pillars adopted by our government on July 3 consisted of the following: one, suspending the Canada-Hong Kong extradition agreement; two, stopping the export of sensitive items and; three, updating our travel advice and advisories for Hong Kong.

I should also add that the announcement on July 3 was preceded by joint statements on Hong Kong, which the Minister of Foreign Affairs forcefully delivered alongside his allies and counterparts.

Among these joint statements, allow me to refer to the following. On May 22, Canada joined Australia and the U.K. On May 28, Canada joined with Australia, the U.K. and the U.S. On June 17, Canada joined the G7 and the EU.

Let me be very clear. Canada has never shied away from standing up for human rights in China, and our voice has been heard loud and clear around the world. In fact, a growing coalition of countries have heard our clarion call for action and have opted to join us in calling for the protection of civil and political rights in Hong Kong.

In addition to what I referenced earlier, on June 30, Canada joined 27 other countries at the UN Human Rights Council to express our collective concerns. Furthermore, at the 45th session of the UN Human Rights Council in September, Canada co-hosted a side event on Hong Kong alongside the United Kingdom and Australia. Shortly thereafter, Canada co-signed, alongside 38 other countries, a statement on the human rights situation in Xinjiang and Hong Kong at the UN General Assembly's Third Committee.

It is important to emphasize here that China's coercive diplomacy has put a strain on Canada-China relations, yet despite pressure and threats, we have continued to forcefully highlight our concerns.

That said, we are under no illusion that China or the situation in Hong Kong will change overnight. Canada will continue to work with partners, sharing our values, to persuade China to live up to its international obligations and to adopt a more conciliatory approach toward Hong Kong.

We certainly reserve the right to undertake appropriate action in response, as recently exemplified by our Minister of Immigration's introduction of new immigration measures in response to the situation in Hong Kong.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, this is what passes for bold measures if one is a Liberal. The Liberals have spoken, made statements, sent letters and hosted events. I could host events. What the government can do is implement policy.

John McCallum told the Canada-China special committee that the government knew of Operation Fox Hunt years ago. This information, new to the public, about foreign-state interference was not new to the government. It knew about it years ago and failed to put in place new legislative measures to support Canadians who were victims.

Where are the Magnitsky sanctions? The government used them with respect to Burma and Venezuela. When will we see Magnitsky sanctions in response to what is happening in China to deter this abuse of human rights?

We continue to send hundreds of millions of dollars to the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank. We say that we are against the Chinese human rights abuses and the Chinese state neocolonialism and we are funding them through the AIIB.

At the very least, could the parliamentary secretary tell us that the government will stop sending cheques to support the Chinese government's foreign policy?

[Ali Ehsassi, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, regrettably, my hon. colleagues does not seem to appreciate that we have to act and lead alongside our allies.

Let me reiterate that China's coercive diplomacy has put a strain on Canada-China relations, yet despite pressure and threats, we have continued to clearly and forcefully highlight our concern for the protection of human rights in places like Hong Kong. Our voice, alongside those of our partners, has been heard loud and clear. It seems the member is the only who does not seem to hear it.

A growing coalition of countries have joined our call for the protection of civil and political rights in Hong Kong. Let me be emphatic that Canada will continue to work with partners to persuade China to live up to its international obligations. As I noted earlier, we reserve the right to undertake appropriate action in response to any future developments as we deem and recognize as necessary.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Pursuant to an order made on Monday, April 20 and Standing Order 81(4), the motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been withdrawn and the House will now resolve itself into committee of the whole, with the order being to study all votes under Department of Health in the main estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2021.

I do now leave the chair for the House to resolve itself into committee of the whole.

[For continuation of proceedings see part B]

[Continuation of proceedings from part A]

(Consideration in committee of the whole of all votes under Health in the main estimates, Mr. Bruce Stanton in the chair)

Health—Main Estimates, 2020-21

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Tonight's debate is a general one on all votes under the Department of Health. The first round will begin with the official opposition, followed by the government, the Bloc Québécois and the New Democratic Party. After that, we will follow the usual proportional rotation.

Pursuant to order made on Tuesday, November 24, within each 15-minute period, each party may allocate time to one or more of its members for speeches or for questions and answers.

In the case of speeches, members of the party to which the period is allocated may speak one after the other, but the time allocated for speeches must not exceed 10 minutes. The Chair would appreciate it if the first member to speak in each period would indicate how that time will be used, particularly if the time will be shared.

The order also specifies that, when the time is used for questions and answers, the minister's answer should approximately reflect the time taken by the question. In addition, the Chair will receive no quorum calls, dilatory motions or requests for unanimous consent.

I also wish to indicate that in committee of the whole, comments should be addressed to the Chair as they always are in the House. I ask for everyone's co-operation in upholding all the established standards of decorum, parliamentary language and behaviour.

We will now begin tonight's session.

The House in committee of the whole, pursuant to Standing Order 81(4), consideration in committee of the whole of all votes under Department of Health in the main estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2021.

The hon. Leader of the Opposition.