HANSARD

December 7, 2009

BILL 204 SECOND READING
ANIMAL HEALTH ACT, 2009

Mr. Ernie Hardeman: I'm pleased to rise today to speak to Bill 204, the Animal Health Act. I want to start by thanking the agricultural organizations that appeared at the committee hearings to share their thoughts on this bill. A number of them had really good comments about where the government had missed the mark and what needed to be improved, and I appreciated the time and thought they put into analyzing the bill.

As we all know, traceability is something that stakeholders wanted and were looking for in this bill. The stakeholders were hopeful that this bill was going to contain more of that. In fact, I think a lot of people were disappointed to find that all it contained is the ability to set something up later by regulation.

Stakeholders were also hopeful that the government was going to work with them to ensure that this act works; hopefully that organizations would not just be consulted but listened to and that their concerns would be addressed. Instead, the government forced the bill through on time allocation, which cut off second reading debate; limited committees to one day in Toronto with very short notice; and limited third reading debate to 20 minutes per party. I want to point out that with the short notice for committee hearings, the only people who appeared were agricultural organizations that have full-time staff who are able to watch and keep an eye on these issues.
By the time the average farmer learned that the date of the committee hearings was set, the hearings were over. During second reading debate, I raised that concern. This government often claims they want input and then refuses to listen or accept any opposition or third party amendments.

During the debate, the parliamentary assistant for agriculture stated, "I appreciate the comments of the members from Oxford and Kenora-Rainy River, particularly the member from Oxford. I appreciate the experience that he brings to the debate, and I also appreciate that he has made some suggestions instead of just simply criticizing."

I thank him for those kind comments. He really tried to make it sound like he was listening, but what's the point of having a real debate or putting forward good, constructive amendments when the government just ignores the input and votes down every single amendment?

We tried to work with the government to make this a piece of legislation that would really work for the farmers because we recognize how important this issue is.

We recognize that agricultural organizations want a traceability system, and we recognize that farmers already have too much unnecessary paperwork and red tape.

In fact, during the committee hearings, the Ontario Federation of Agriculture said, "Farmers, however, are already subject to considerable administrative and reporting responsibilities. These administrative responsibilities carry with them costs that are not necessarily reflected in the price received by farmers."

I want to remind the Legislature that, during second reading debate, I also raised concerns that this act would create more red tape for farmers, and I gave the example of the fact that it allowed new licensing and permits. The member from Lambton-Kent-Middlesex responded and said: "There are a few things I want to remind the member of. You were talking about the licensing. We are repealing three acts and incorporating them into this one, including the Livestock Community Sales Act. When I look at page 9, when you talk about section 12, and I read through it, I see licensing as it relates to livestock yards and the ability to repeal, take away, or refuse to license those types of entities. I think that's appropriate inside this act, since we are, as I say, bringing three other acts into this one as well."

I understand the member's argument, that if the government is repealing acts in which there are licences that serve a purpose, the new act that is introduced should contain that ability to license.

There is nothing in her argument or the arguments from any government members that explained the need for more licences. So based on the debates in this Legislature, the PC caucus introduced the following amendment: "I move that clause 63(3)(a) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:
"`(a) prescribing activities for which a licensed certificate, registration or permit is required, provided the activities are ones for which a licence, certificate, registration or permits are required under the Bees Act, the Livestock Community Sales Act and the Livestock Medicines Act as those acts read immediately before they were repealed.'"

This would restrict the licensing and permits allowed under the new act to those that were required under the old act. Remember, this is why they claimed they needed the ability to create new licences, certificates and registrations. I'm disappointed to have to report that the Liberal members voted that amendment down in spite of what they said in this Legislature. Apparently, they already know they are planning to put more licences and permits in place; they just don't feel the need to share the details with us here or with Ontario's farmers.

It concerns me that perhaps we have more things that they are planning to implement later by regulation. In this bill, the McGuinty government has given themselves the ability to do a huge amount behind closed doors through regulations. In fact, during the committee hearings, they tabled several amendments that allowed them to redefine words through regulations.

To me, if you're looking for a definition of a word, usually you look in the Oxford dictionary, and not just because it shares the name of one of the greatest ridings in Ontario. Allowing the minister to change the definition of a word behind closed doors means that she is able to change the meaning of the act, such that the impact is very different from what was intended when the members of this Legislature voted on it.

For instance, there is an amendment that gave the minister the ability, through regulation, to define what is a hazard. I asked the ministry staff who were present whether this meant the regulations would be changed to include animal welfare. He said, "For this provision, the definition of `hazard' can include anything that the Lieutenant Governor in Council prescribes as being a hazard." When asked again, they admitted that, yes, animal welfare could be included.

I want to make it clear that I think we need animal welfare rules, but one of the things that the agricultural organizations were clear on is that those rules exist in other acts. If we want changes to those rules, the correct way to do that is by modifying those acts, not by adding new rules to this one. We already have too many places where there is more than one act or more than one ministry setting standards on the same thing, and it simply leads to confusion and frustration for people who are doing their best to follow the rules.

One of the things that the stakeholders asked for during the committee hearings was to ensure there wasn't duplication on traceability, so that if a commodity was better suited for a national or international traceability system, they weren't forced to do two sets of paperwork to comply with the provincial system as well. We moved an amendment that said, "The minister may make regulations exempting agricultural operations or sectors from the requirements of the provincial traceability system if the operations or sectors are subject to national or international traceability systems that, in the opinion of the minister, provide safeguards equivalent to or better than the provincial traceability system." This means that if a commodity already has a traceability system and the minister finds that it provides at least the same level of protection for food safety and animal health, then she would have the ability to say that these farmers do not need to complete two sets of paperwork.

For instance, Ontario cattlemen are part of the national Canadian identification system, the CCIA, which is industry-led and supported by the Canadian cattle industry. Once the minister establishes our provincial traceability system requirements, wouldn't it just make sense to exempt the cattlemen, if the CCIA is just as good? How is there any benefit from requiring farmers to fill out two sets of paperwork and meet two sets of protocol? Again, it was an amendment that was requested by the stakeholders; again, it was a common-sense amendment; and again, the Liberal members of the committee voted it down.

Another thing the stakeholders asked for in their submission on the draft legislation, and again at the committee hearings, was to strengthen the section on compensation to ensure that there was no cost to the farmers. The National Farmers Union said, "Destruction of livestock could mean a complete loss of livelihood for farmers, and if compensation is discretionary, it could well create a situation whereby well-meaning farmers might be afraid to come forward with disease concerns." If a farmer is ordered to destroy his herd for the public good, shouldn't the public compensate him for that? While the legislation allows for compensation, it leaves it to the minister's discretion to say that he or she "may" provide compensation.

During their committee presentation, the Christian Farmers Federation of Ontario said, "The CFFO recommends that compensation under the Animal Health Act be mandatory for producer loss. The protection of the broader public and/or a commodity sector should not be borne by an individual operation at the discretion of government." The Liberal members of the committee voted down our amendment to make compensation mandatory. They voted down our amendment that would create an appeals process for compensation, as requested by the Ontario Farm Animal Council.

I believe it's important for all of us to listen to the concerns of the stakeholders. That is why I introduced a motion, as requested by the stakeholders, that would have required the minister to establish an industry advisory committee, but unfortunately, the Liberal members on the Legislative Assembly committee voted that down too.

This amendment illustrates the problem with time allocation. The parliamentary assistant, on behalf of the government, said that the problem he had with my amendment was that it needed an `s' on the word `committee.' Because of the time allocation, even simple changes like that aren't an option. By setting the deadline for when amendments have to be filed, the members are prevented from taking two different amendments and combining them during the committee to get the best possible legislation.

The government introduced a motion on the same topic, and the parliamentary assistant made a big deal about the fact that it included changing the word "may" to "shall." For those of you who are watching from the galleries and at home, the difference is usually that "may" means the minister has the ability to do it if she so wishes, and "shall" requires her to do it. However, what he failed to mention is that their amendment said that the minister "shall establish such committees as the minister considers appropriate," which means there's really no requirement to establish committees to consult at all.

Previously, the minister had been allowed to set up committees by regulation. In fact-let's be honest-there was never anything stopping the minister from setting up a committee. What the stakeholders asked for was that the committee be mandatory. What they got was more smoke and mirrors.

The Liberal members of the committee also voted down an amendment that would remove the current restriction that says the chief veterinarian must be an employee of the ministry. The purpose of the amendment was to ensure that we had the most qualified person for the job, regardless of where they came from.

We also moved an amendment that would require the chief veterinarian to have worked in a practice that includes farm animals. This is an amendment that the Ontario Farm Animal Council asked for during the committee hearings. They said, "Given that the act will have the greatest impact on the province's agriculture sector, qualifications for the Chief Veterinarian of Ontario and for the deputy chief veterinarian of Ontario should be mandated to have farm animal veterinary experience."

To me, that just makes sense. We are entrusting the chief veterinarian to make decisions that will have major impacts on individual farmers, the agricultural sector and even the provincial economy. I believe, as do many of the agricultural organizations such as the Ontario Livestock and Poultry Council, that it is responsible to ensure that the person has experience with farm animals. But the government members, again, voted down that amendment.

Another one of the amendments that seemed like common sense was the change to the time frame for giving farmers written copies of an inspector's orders. The way the act is currently written, inspectors can issue an order orally when to issue it in writing would cause a delay. Given the fact that this act is designed to deal with emergency situations, I think we can all understand the need to be able to give an oral order. However, presently the act gives the inspector up to seven days to deliver the order in writing. There are two problems with this. First, if there is an urgency to the situation, the order probably would require the farmer to do something or stop doing something sooner than in seven days.

The other problem is that, according to the act, the farmer has seven days to appeal the order. If the inspector takes the full seven days to deliver the written order, it would be impractical, if not impossible, for the person receiving the order to actually appeal that order before the deadline of the appeal passes. Our amendment would have required that the written order be delivered in two days instead of seven so that farmers would have it in hand and be able to appeal it if they wanted.
I want to read the response from the parliamentary assistant. He said, "Although inspectors are required to issue written orders as soon as practical, the government feels that a two-day mandatory period may not be appropriate in all cases. It ties their hands. We won't be supporting this motion."

The government supports having inspectors deliver written orders in a specific time frame. In fact, they put it in the bill, so the argument that it ties their hands or that the time frame may not be appropriate really doesn't work. The difference of opinion is really about the length of time between when the inspector issues the order orally and when they issue a written order for the same order. We believe that for an appeal to be effective, the farmer must have the information on how to do it before the appeal period expires.

One of the amendments that I was disappointed we didn't have the opportunity to debate because of the shortness of time was the one that would have removed the "reasonable force" from the bill. As it is presently written, this bill allows people who are carrying out the orders of the chief veterinarian to use reasonable force. Given the nature of orders like this, this likely means veterinarians or OMAFRA employees would be given the right or, worse, be expected to use reasonable force. I was actually looking forward to the debate because I wanted to hear the explanation, and I hoped that the government would see reason and change it. But again, the Liberals on the committee voted it down.

We tabled several amendments that would have restricted the rights of someone to enter private property without a warrant. In a number of pieces of legislation, the McGuinty government has removed the requirement for a warrant, and frankly, I believe that's wrong. People have a right to privacy and due process, particularly when we're talking about their land.

In their presentation to the committee, the Christian farmers said, "The CFFO recommends that the powers of inspectors be limited such that a warrant is required to enter a livestock facility. The reason for this is that the issue of biosecurity is not adequately addressed within this act."
I understand that there are times when time is a factor. As a former firefighter, I know that in emergency situations, time can determine the outcome. Under our amendments, if the inspector believed that there was urgent threat to animal or human health, they could go in without a warrant. If they believed that a delay would result in evidence being lost or destroyed, they could apply for a warrant by telephone. But if an inspector knows that they are going in to make sure that the licence is on the bulletin board, they do not have permission to go in. They must get a warrant to do that, just as any other police officer in this province would have to do if it wasn't under this act.

During the debate in committee on this amendment, the parliamentary assistant said, "Requiring consent or a warrant prior to entering a licensee's premises could frustrate inspection activities."

Clearly this isn't about animal health; this is about piling more red tape on our farmers and hiring more inspectors, something the McGuinty government is very good at. Our farmers don't need more paperwork or more people looking over their shoulders; they need a government that will help them.

Over the course of the debate on this bill, I've talked a lot about red tape and additional costs to farmers. For those who don't know the current situation in agriculture, and unfortunately that seems to include most of the Liberal members in the House, our agriculture industry needs help. A number of organizations have come together to form the Ontario Agriculture Sustainability Coalition to deliver that message.

Many farmers who will be affected by this bill, including our hog farmers and cattlemen, are suffering. The market prices aren't covering their costs, and now they're losing money on every animal. There was a lot of media coverage of the hog farmer that had his hydro shut off this fall and what was going to happen to his thousands of pigs. The federal government stepped in to get the lights on, but the provincial government did absolutely nothing. That farmer, like many others across this province, is still in a dire situation. He still needs our help. They need short-term government support to get them through this crisis. Long-term, they need a government that reduces red tape and unnecessary paperwork. They need a government that will help them be innovative and efficient, a government that will work with them, not against them.

I know that many stakeholders wanted legislation on traceability and animal health, and I'm sorry that on such an important issue the government chose to ram it through without working with us and taking the time to get this legislation right for our farmers. We know that the agriculture industry is vital to the future of our province and contributes greatly to our provincial economy. We also know that they aren't just numbers; they are people and families and are working hard to put food on our tables and provide for our families. They are good people who are trying to follow the rules, protect their land and care for their animals. We have a responsibility to help them succeed, and unfortunately I don't believe that this act is doing that. It doesn't give them the traceability tools they were asking for. Instead, it piles on more red tape and takes away their rights on their own land. That's why, unfortunately, I cannot support this bill.

I do want to say to the government that I believe these issues are important, and I believe that having a good traceability system in place will assist our farmers on trading internationally. So in the future, if you want to address these issues, we are prepared to work with you so we can do that collectively. This bill does not do it. That's why we will be voting against it.