Debates of June 15th, 2023

Motion That Debate Be Not Further Adjourned

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Madam Speaker, I hear my colleague. I feel he could at least have the intellectual honesty to correctly quote what the Bloc Québécois said. We are facing a rejection of custom and tradition, and he is acting like it means nothing.

He is taking an exceptional pandemic situation, in which we all participated and co-operated, and setting an absolutely shameful precedent. He is talking about the voting app. He should have consulted us instead of unilaterally doing what he is doing today. I would like him to have this done to him when he is on this side of the House after the next election just to see how he likes it.

If he had consulted with us and read our dissenting report, he would know that we were willing to make concessions on the voting app. There is nothing wrong with that. People may have obligations in their constituency on Fridays or Mondays. Rather than setting up a pairing system, we can vote remotely. It is something worthwhile.

Why does his motion not comply with the report's sixth recommendation? Why the double standard? He is asking the opposition parties for quorums that he will not need to reach on the government side. It is despicable. Doing it with a closure motion is even more despicable.

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax, ON]

Madam Speaker, over the past three years, I have had several discussions with the Bloc Québécois. I asked them what changes they were proposing for a hybrid system and for voting. Unfortunately, they made it clear every time that a hybrid system was not acceptable.

This is very odd, because the member opposite uses this system every day. I see this as providing an option. With the support of a majority of members, it would be possible to change the rules and, for example, cancel the hybrid system.

I do wonder what would happen if we did not adopt the hybrid system, however. In the future, this way of doing things will continue to exist for one reason: It provides flexibility for important moments in a member's life. That is so important that we must continue using this system.

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I think the procedural aspect is important. I heard my friend from the Bloc raise the concern that the Bloc was not consulted, yet the hon. member suggested that the Bloc was consulted after PROC. Perhaps he could refresh my memory as to when that was tabled and what the nature of the extra consultations was with the parties.

If he is comfortable doing so, could he also provide his recollection as the House leader of what the outcome was, substantively, and what the various parties had as potential criticisms or support for the bill that we are debating here today?

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax, ON]

Madam Speaker, it was January 31 that PROC completed its report. Immediately after that, we were able to engage in discussions with the House leader from his party. Then we got the response from his party about, I believe, three or four weeks ago, when they let us know what their final position was and what their proposed changes were. It took a little while for them to get them. I do not criticize them. I know there are a lot of things happening in his party, but we certainly appreciated receiving those.

What I heard from the Bloc Québécois was, “Well, maybe, maybe not; maybe we want to change some things; maybe we don't.” There was never any specificity. I still do not know what the position of the Bloc is. I heard, “Maybe we're for the voting application.” That would be great, as they use it. In one recent case, 80% of the Bloc members used it. Some Bloc members have told me that they love the voting app and the ability to speak at a distance, use the screen and participate virtually, while other members do not agree with that, so I do not know what their position is.

That is over the past three years, by the way, which we have come back to again and again.

The Conservatives have been very consistent, I have to say: They are against it in any and all circumstances. They say they want to debate it more, but the only thing they say when they debate it is that they are against it. I do not know how many speeches we have to listen to, year after year after year, as they say “No, we're against it. We don't support it.”

We have heard them, but these provisions, which have been in place now for three years, allow the House to continue to do its work and the government to continue to be accountable. These provisions provide a little bit of flexibility, and, by the way, Conservatives and Bloc members use them every single day.

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

Madam Speaker, I had the opportunity to speak on the amendments to the Standing Orders, and of course I am in support of them. We have heard in this 30 minutes of debate some of the hypocrisy in the fact that a couple of the opposition parties who are against this are readily using these tools.

My question to the hon. House leader is this. We have moved through a continuum of making changes as this House sees fit, and I know that right now some members are going to ask that committee chairs be in the room physically when they are conducting meetings. Can the hon. House leader talk about the fact that, yes, we are adopting this, but perhaps ease some concern for those who are worried about this, in that we can adjust it as we go forward, as we have done all the way along?

This is a good thing. It provides more tools to Parliament, but with the will of Parliament, we can adjust as necessary.

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax, ON]

Madam Speaker, I agree with my colleague.

A number of changes have been recommended, in some instances by all parties. He mentions the change requesting that committee chairs be present. That is a change that was made. There was a request by opposition parties that all questions in question period be answered by the government in person. That change was made, and we have the opportunity to continue to evaluate how these provisions work.

However, to his point, when members say they are against hybrid sitting and then use it, it is hard to find them credible in that. If we say that a change in the Standing Orders should come from a unanimity of opinion, I think we can look at the past three years, including out of health circumstances, when members had every opportunity to be here. They use it, and it shows that they want it.

If the members from the Conservative Party and the Bloc were serious in their opposition to this, then we would see them here for every single one of the votes; we would see them here in person for every question and every speech, and of course that is not the case. The case is that they are using it, and in the hallways they are saying, “This is great; this is life-changing. There was an important event; something happened in my family; I had to be there for my child; I had to be there for my spouse; I was able to do it, because of hybrid; it changed everything for me; I am so glad it is there.”

Then, they walk in the chamber and say they are against it and it is wrong and an affront, and how terrible it is. It stretches believability.

[Alex Ruff, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would encourage the House leader to go listen to my speech from Monday night on this, because I do not accept his argument that, just because certain members of opposition parties have used hybrid, it is somehow hypocritical of us.

It is the rules. It is like the analogy I used on Monday night. It is like playing hockey 100 years ago, when they could not pass the puck forward. It is like we are going to play with the same rules that were in place 100 years ago, although the rules have changed. We have to use the rules that are present, and it was decided that hybrid would be in place, but I just want to get to two quick points.

One is that the Conservative Party was in agreement, with even the Bloc on board, if a sunset clause was put in. We could have gotten to unanimity. Hybrid would have remained here for the remainder of this Parliament and into one year of the next Parliament, and then whatever government would have to come back and approve of keeping it in place.

My second thing, and I know the House leader has been around a heck of a lot longer than me, is that this place is partisan and divisive enough. The best way we can get things done in this chamber, especially for those of us in opposition, happens when we can talk face-to-face to ministers and parliamentary secretaries who ultimately have the privilege to be in government.

Would he agree, even as another step forward, to not just having the ministers and the parliamentary secretaries present for question period, but that the only way they should be allowed to participate in the House in debate is to be here in person, because it is such a privilege to be in government?

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax, ON]

Madam Speaker, I will start with the hockey analogy, because I think it is an apt one. Members can imagine a circumstance where there was a change, where there was an option to play hockey outdoors or play hockey indoors, either option was available, and someone chose every single day to play hockey indoors, but then came and said that playing hockey indoors is evil, awful and terrible. It is the worst thing to do, yet they keep showing up to the indoor arena. That is the actual analogy here.

There is an option. If one does not want to use hybrid, they do not have to use hybrid. They can show up and vote in person, and they can participate in person every single day, but that is not the choice the Conservatives make. The choice they make is to use the virtual functions when they do not have to. That is the point I am making.

The consensus is found in the utilization of all of it.

I certainly hope it is not the case, but if there is Conservative government one day, and that government decides with another party to get rid of these provisions, then it can. However, I am saying there are so many circumstances, such as what we talked about with Chuck Cadman. We talked about what his wife, Dona Cadman, said. We can talk about my good friend, Arnold Chan, one of the closest people in my life, whom I had to watch drag himself into this chamber with no option other than to be here, sick. We could talk about Mauril Bélanger. The list could go on and on. I have not even heard from the members how they would accommodate at least that.

In the reverse, what we have seen is that when the opposition has had issues, like saying ministers should be present in question period, we agreed. When they said chairs of committees must be present for accountability and in order for committees to function and work, we said “yes”. When they made actual constructive suggestions, we listened to them, and we will continue to listen to them.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am listening to what the government House leader is saying, and it is mind-boggling in its intellectual dishonesty. If he keeps talking about electronic voting and all the little things in the reform of the Standing Orders, it is for an obvious reason: He is embarrassed to talk about the way he works.

We have before us a government that shows contempt for Parliament, for parliamentarians and for the work of the committee, as we saw with China. It also shows contempt for the electoral system. Today, the government shows contempt for tradition. Changing the Standing Orders without unanimous agreement happened once, and for a minor rule, under Pierre Elliott Trudeau, one of the prime ministers with the lowest moral standards in Canadian history.

Today, what the Liberals are telling us is that we did not think fast enough for him and that he would have liked an answer sooner. He decided to trample on the traditions of this Parliament. After listening to all the arguments, the made-up facts and the leader's dishonesty, I have no questions for him, and I invite him, in the time remaining, to continue to spout nonsense.

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax, ON]

Madam Speaker, speaking of honesty, what I find dishonest is members using all the options available with the hybrid system and then saying it is a terrible system that they hate. They use the system every day.

We debated this for three years. We are free to use the hybrid Parliament every day. I love democracy here in Canada. I am so proud to say that, each day, I make sure that our democracy is as open as possible. When we have a system that provides a bit of flexibility, it helps more people become MPs. The hybrid system allows people to have a personal life while also fulfilling their responsibilities here in the House.

The member opposite knows full well that being a member of Parliament is very hard work and that the hybrid Parliament gives us a little room for a personal life.

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, the report from the procedure and House affairs committee is dated January of this year. The motion we are discussing now that is under closure I believe we began a few days ago.

What happened over those months? Why did we not start this conversation earlier when that report was received from committee, so all of February, March and April? Why is this conversation being started so late and, as result, we are at the place we are now?

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax, ON]

Madam Speaker, remember, these provisions have been in place exactly as they are for three years, and so we have had an opportunity to use these. At the beginning of every session of Parliament, we had a protracted debate for, in some cases, weeks about the use of the applications. We have had an opportunity House leader to House leader to have extensive conversations.

As I said earlier, once the report from PROC was completed at the end of January, it was an opportunity to digest two and a half years of information and have conversations about how we could move forward. It became clear that one of the parties, the Conservatives, said that under no circumstances would they ever accept this. The only way it could go forward, despite the fact they were using it every day, was for us to proceed in this fashion.

I tried to provide as much time as possible to find that bridge, to find some way to work together, to find some way to get to unanimity. Unfortunately, working with the Bloc and working with the Conservatives it became clear such consensus would never be possible. It would not only not be possible between January 31 and now, it would not be possible between January 31 and, if one listens to the Conservatives, the end of time. However, they still want to use these provisions, and that is the point—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

It is my duty to interrupt the proceedings at this time and put forthwith the question on the motion now before the House.

The question is on the motion.

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

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, we would request a recorded vote, please.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

Call in the members.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #380

Government Business No. 26—Amendments to the Standing Orders

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

I declare the motion carried.

Bill S-8—Notice of Time Allocation Motion

[David Lametti, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Madam Speaker, an agreement could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Order 78(1) or 78(2) with respect to the report stage and third reading stage of Bill S-8, an act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, to make consequential amendments to other acts and to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations.

Under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), I give notice that a minister of the Crown will propose at the next sitting a motion to allot a specific number of days or hours for the consideration and disposal of proceedings at the respective stages of the said bill.

The House resumed from May 1 consideration of the motion that Bill C-275, An Act to amend the Health of Animals Act (biosecurity on farms) be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Health of Animals Act

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is always great to rise to speak in this most honourable of House.

I would like to first offer thanks to the member for Foothills for his work with regard to the agricultural sector in Canada. I know the hon. member is a champion for the agricultural sector in the area he represents. We all come here championing our causes and issues, and I would like to speak to the hon. member's private member's bill this evening.

The government welcomes the opportunity to speak to the importance of supporting Canadian farmers. Now, more than ever, farmers face increasing hardships. These range from sustained supply chain issues to the rising costs of doing business.

Moreover, the effects of climate change and the risk of harmful and deadly animal diseases are only compounding these difficulties. It feels like farmers cannot catch a break. It is crucial that we provide these hard-working Canadians and their families with the tools they need to do their jobs safely so that they can be competitive and ensure the safety of their animals or livestock.

I would like to take a few minutes to speak to importance of the agri-food system in Canada and the actions that our government is taking to support Canadian farmers across the country.

The agriculture and agri-food system is a key pillar of Canada's economy. In 2021, it employed 2.1 million people in Canada, representing one out of every nine jobs. In the same year, Canada exported nearly $82.2 billion in agriculture and food products, making us one of the top 10 exporters of agri-food and seafood in the world, something of which we can be quite proud.

It is safe to say that agriculture touches every Canadian. In fact, the agriculture sector is very broad and encompasses federal, provincial and territorial governments, industry partners and farmers. Each of these groups plays a unique and indispensable role to keep Canadian livestock safe and healthy.

I can proudly say that the Government of Canada takes its role seriously in supporting Canadian farmers and in supporting the Canadian agri-food sector. We have a long record of championing initiatives that protect and grow our agriculture and agri-food sector.

Just recently, budget 2023 announced a number of initiatives to respond to the emerging needs of the Canadian agriculture industry. These included $333 million to establish a dairy innovation and investment fund to increase revenues for dairy farmers; $34 million to support farmers for diversifying away from certain fertilizers; and $13 million to increase the interest-free limit of loans under the advance payments program to provide additional cash flow to farmers in need.

Budget 2023 also announced $57.5 million over five years to establish a vaccine bank for foot and mouth disease so that farmers can maintain market access for their livestock and protect their livelihood in the event of an outbreak.

In addition, the government has a history of working closely with provinces and territories to support economic growth for the agriculture and agri-food sector.

For example, the sustainable Canadian agricultural partnership was launched on April 1. The renewal of this important five-year policy framework will benefit farmers and processors from across all of Canada. The sustainable Canadian agricultural partnership has set aside $3.5 billion, up 25% from the previous 2018 to 2023 agreement, to strengthen the competitiveness, innovation and resiliency of the agriculture sector.

This partnership agreement recognizes what we already know, that farming is a difficult job. That is why the government is also committed to supporting the mental health of Canadians, including farmers and their families. For instance, under the Canadian agricultural partnership, it provided $7 million for two multi-year mental health initiatives to support farmers.

In addition, the government funds the Wellness Together Canada portal. This portal operates 24 hours a day and seven days a week. It provides free, credible information to individuals to help address their mental health and substance use issues. The Wellness Together Canada portal also provides information and self-assessment tools, peer support networks and access to psychologists and other professionals.

This government recognizes that meaningful support to farmers must recognize both economic and psychological hardships.

I understand that Bill C-275 tries to protect farmers by minimizing risks to on-farm biosecurity. Let me be clear that the government takes these risks seriously. Disease outbreaks can have major impacts on animal welfare and food supply, and result in economic losses. We also know that farmers are also focused on biosecurity as they too care about the health and well-being of their animals.

It is important to note that the health of animals and biosecurity measures are a shared responsibility among the federal government, the provinces and territories, industry associations and farmers.

Recognizing the importance of biosecurity in preventing the spread of animal disease, the Government of Canada has championed efforts and has provided funding to strengthen on-farm biosecurity. For instance, federal funds helped support the development of 14 commodity-specific national biosecurity standards. The Canadian Food Inspection Agency, industry, academic institutions, and provinces and territories developed these voluntary national biosecurity standards, protocols and strategies to protect animals from disease.

Additionally, through the federal AgriAssurance program and its predecessors, the government has provided industry associations with funding to develop on-farm assurance programs that include biosecurity protocols. Several of these associations, such as the Dairy Farmers of Canada and the Chicken Farmers of Canada, have on-farm programs that include biosecurity requirements.

In addition, under the Canadian agricultural partnership, federal, provincial and territorial governments have advanced a number of cost-shared investments that support biosecurity. Some recent examples include funding of up to $1.5 million for the poultry biosecurity preparedness initiative in Ontario, and up to $45.3 million to fund efforts that enhance Canada's African swine fever response, including actions to mitigate risks to biosecurity.

These examples all highlight the important work and investment that farmers, industry associations, provinces and territories, and the Government of Canada have all made toward on-farm biosecurity. There is a collective recognition that on-farm biosecurity is an important measure to safeguard animal health and to minimize the risk of animal disease outbreaks in order to protect the livelihood of Canada's agri-food producers. To really help farmers, we should be championing the use of these on-farm biosecurity standards and protocols and encouraging their use.

In conclusion, the government recognizes the hard work, day in and day out, of Canadian farmers, their families and agriculture producers along the complete agricultural continuum, and it is responding to the sector's needs. The government is interested in supporting legislation that builds on the investments that various partners, including farmers themselves, have already made to improve animal health on farms.

We look forward to studying Bill C-275 at committee and discussing ways that it can be amended to recognize and build on the great work farmers, their families, the communities involved and others are doing to support biosecurity measures on farm.

[Luc Desilets, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Madam Speaker, we are in the House this evening to study Bill C‑275, which amends the Health of Animals Act. This bill was introduced by the Conservative member for Foothills, in Alberta, and is now in the House at second reading.

Briefly, Bill C‑275 proposes to “make it an offence to enter, without lawful authority or excuse, a place in which animals are kept if doing so could result in [their] exposure...to a disease or toxic substance that is capable of...contaminating them.” So it amends the Health of Animals Act, and it is under that amended act that penalties will be applied.

The Bloc Québécois supports the principle of Bill C‑275, subject to a thorough study in committee. We are in favour of it because it is an important bill and subject. Fundamentally, it is about trespassing. These are criminal acts rooted in extremism. Of course, extremism has never solved anything.

I would like to clarify a few things about this bill before I move on.

First, it is not an indictment of veganism, but an indictment of extremist activism and certain antispeciesists.

Second, this is not about freedom of speech. People absolutely have the right to protest and denounce practices they do not agree with. However, we cannot condone that being done through illegal acts that could also harm both farmers and animals. Obviously, one's personal freedom ends where another's begins.

Third, this bill does not condone animal abuse. We all have a personal and collective responsibility to prevent animal suffering. Once again, that does not mean we are exempt from the law or our duty to go through the designated authorities. In Quebec, the ministry of agriculture, fisheries and food, or MAPAQ, is responsible for this.

Fourth, it is about making people aware that there are biosecurity standards to be respected on farms in order to ensure the safety of animals and livestock.

What is biosafety? MAPAQ defines it as the set of tools, measures and procedures for preventing and addressing the dangers associated with the transmission of pathogens through various pathways for contamination. Mad cow disease, H1N1 and H5N1 influenza, circovirus, scrapie and wasting disease of cervids are all examples of transmitted diseases with serious consequences for the entire agri-food complex, public health and the balance of biodiversity. When humans come into contact with animals or their habitat without taking the appropriate precautions to avoid contamination, the risk of disease increases tenfold. For a breeder, an outbreak can obviously lead to serious financial losses. In the case of a spread outside the farm, the consequences can be devastating.

It is interesting to learn that this bill was drafted partly in response to a specific event that occurred on December 7, 2019, when 13 vegan and antispeciesist activists broke into a hog farm in Saint-Hyacinthe. The farm was named Les Porgreg. They were there to protest the breeding of animals for human consumption. They entered the hog barn, filmed and demonstrated for almost seven hours in front of the pig pens in an attempt to expose the pigs' quality of life.

Several Sûreté du Québec officers had to enter the building to remove them. As a result, some 30 people who should not have been there contaminated the premises.

According to the owners, the incident caused a rotavirus outbreak, which considerably increased the maternal mortality rate of the herd.

Moreover, the criminals were fully aware of what they were doing, and what they were doing was completely illegal.

Events like those in Saint-Hyacinthe are unfortunately not isolated. What is interesting in this particular case is that it was discovered that MAPAQ followed up a year later. That helped move the issue forward and raise public awareness of the situation. The MAPAQ inspector noted that there were too many animals in certain pens at the Les Porgreg pig farm. The pens were soiled with manure, lacked proper ventilation, contained too many flies and so on. The good news is that on March 16, 2020, the farm followed the inspector's recommendations to the letter. Yes, the farm had committed a number of violations, but is this type of stunt allowed, or should it be allowed? The answer is, quite clearly, it absolutely should not.

My brother Alain is a farmer and has been a goat farmer for a number of years. I can say that it is an extremely—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Order. I want to remind members that the business of the House is continuing. There are a lot of conversations going on on both sides, which is really rude. I would ask members to please take their conversations out.

The hon. member for Rivière-des-Mille-Îles.

[Luc Desilets, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Madam Speaker, I was saying that my very dear brother Alain is a farmer and raised goats. I can say that it is an incredibly difficult job that requires working seven days a week, 365 days a year. There is no vacation.

Farmers and ranchers use equipment that costs a fortune. They have to tighten their belts. It is an extremely demanding job.

I believe that ranchers and farmers have been forgotten by today's society. Society depends on them, but does not recognize the true value of everything they do for us.

The Bloc Québécois will obviously vote in favour of this bill.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise in debate today to talk about this bill and its objective of trying to maintain biosecurity on farms. As the member who was just speaking was talking about, we owe a lot to farmers. They do a lot of hard work. Farming can also be challenging financially, particularly in bad years; even in good years, there is a lot of upfront investment that folks need to make in order to be able to have a successful farm. When disease strikes the livestock population, it can be devastating for farmers, financially and otherwise. It stands to reason that there is a real concern about how to protect the biosecurity of farms.

This is a bill we saw in the last Parliament as well. It went to committee. Ultimately, it did not pass. I do not know if it got through the House, but because of an early and untimely election call, it certainly did not get through Parliament. Therefore, here we are debating the same issue again.

It is a legitimate goal to want to protect livestock operations from bacteria and other biological threats that would create problems in the livestock population, and this bill talks about that. Any time one is talking about food, many Canadians are going to have an interest. People want to know where their food comes from and how it is produced.

There are folks who have expressed concern about this bill being more about trying to keep people off farms for the purpose of not talking about how things are produced, but it seems to me that there ought to be a balance that can be struck between these two legitimate concerns. I think, in the last Parliament, in a similar bill, some of that work was being done at committee; there had been some progress made on striking the right balance.

I am optimistic that the right balance can be struck again. This is why it is important for this bill to go to committee, so that work can continue. As I said, this work is not starting from nothing. There are many members who sit around the committee table in this Parliament who were there in the last Parliament, just as my colleague from Cowichan—Malahat—Langford was our critic on that bill in the last Parliament and is now again. I am optimistic that the work can be undertaken in a good way and that they are not starting from scratch, even though it may seem like that on paper, here in this Parliament.

I am pleased to rise to put some of those thoughts on the record and express my support once again for this bill going to committee. There, committee members can hear from folks in civil society, both those with experience running farming operations and others who are concerned about some of the, perhaps, unintended consequences of this legislation. I look forward to the conclusions of the committee after it has had an opportunity to do its work.

[Warren Steinley, Conservative, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Madam Speaker, I am happy to rise today to support the bill of my friend from Foothills, Bill C-275, an act to amend the Health of Animals Act, relating to biosecurity on farms.

I just listened to my friend from the NDP talk about some of the things this act might do, but I would like to read into the record some of the comments by my friend from Foothills in response to the bill. He said that he wanted to make clear what this bill does not do: It does not limit an individual's right to protest on public property. I just want to make sure that we have an understanding of what this bill is meant to do and what it will not do even if some people have some concerns. It will not prevent whistle-blowers, and it will not prevent people from protesting on public property.

What my friend from Foothills is trying to do is to ensure that animals are secure on private property, on farms. We know that there is a lot going on right now in the agriculture industry, and we have very real concerns about African swine fever and foot-and-mouth disease. There are a lot of diseases that can be contracted, and transferred from farm to farm, that have really devastating effects on the animals on a farm. I just want to make that very clear from the get-go.

This bill is really close to my heart. I was born and raised on a dairy and beef farm in southwest Saskatchewan. That is where my roots are, and that is where I try to get back home to as much as possible. I think some people who, like my NDP friend would say, are concerned about the protesting aspect of animals being on farms, do not really know how to be around animals as much as actual farmers do.

I have to put on the record that people who are raising animals take amazing care of the animals. When I was growing up on the dairy farm, we showed cattle all over North America. We were at the Royal Agricultural Winter Fair and the Madison World Dairy Expo. Those animals were our livelihood on our farm. I remember my dad going out to the barn every night to make sure all the animals were okay, checking to see if a calf was coming and just ensuring the animals were safe and had clean bedding, making sure they were taken care of, making sure there was feed in the alleyways. There were exciting times on the farm.

What I would like to portray this evening, in talking about this bill, is what great care our agriculture producers, our farmers, take with their animals. That is what helps them to provide for their families. As a young boy, I learned this on our farm by watching my dad and my uncle look after—