- Member of Parliament
- Member of Parliament
- Conservative
- Foothills
- Alberta
- Voting Attendance: 65%
- Expenses Last Quarter: $161,345.02
- Government Page
Madam Speaker, I want to thank all colleagues who took the opportunity not only tonight but throughout this process to speak in support of this very important legislation, which is an amendment to the Health of Animals Act, Bill C-275.
There has been overwhelming support for this bill from Canadians across this country, and certainly from farmers, producers and the entire agriculture sector. I cannot thank them enough for helping me craft this legislation, for improving it at committee and for championing it through the legislative process. To farmers, ranchers and producers across the country for their encouraging phone calls and letters, I give a heartfelt thanks.
Perhaps it is fitting if I take a few minutes to read an excerpt from an open letter by the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, which represents more than 200,000 families across Canada. It states:
The amendments proposed under Bill C-275, would provide targeted intervention against the on-farm food safety and biosecurity risk by limiting the access of unauthorized entrants to animals and farms. The proposed amendments to the Health of Animals Act offer an avenue to further strengthen our overall food system by enhancing the measures in place to protect the health of farm animals across our country.
At the same time, Bill C-275 strikes a balance between producers’ safety and protection and the right to lawful and peaceful protest. Our members’ operations often host visitors to demonstrate how the land is managed or their animals are cared for, but there is a key distinction between those who willingly follow prescribed, strict biosecurity and sanitation practices and those who willfully endanger animal health, welfare, and food safety.
The letter goes on to quote Megz Reynolds, an executive director of the Do More Agriculture Foundation, a group that is the national voice and champion for mental health in agriculture. She said:
Agriculture is an industry with a foundation in deep rural roots, hard work, resilience, strength, and community. On a daily [basis] farmers deal with numerous factors outside of their control, that directly influence their mental wellbeing. Farmers should not have to add living with the fear of protestors trespassing into enclosed areas and endangering their animals, livelihoods, and food security on top of everything else that weighs on them day in and day out. Farmers are among the most vulnerable when it comes to mental health challenges like stress, anxiety, depression, emotional exhaustion, and burnout. In 2021 the University of Guelph found that 1 in 4 Canadian farmers felt like their life was not worth living, wished that they were dead, or had thought about taking their own life in the last 12 months.
The letter concludes by saying, “We urge you to support Bill C-275 and its proposed amendments, which will provide increased safety to producers, the animals they raise, and the food they produce.”
I, of course, echo these sentiments. I want to encourage my colleagues to support Bill C-275 and send a message to our farmers, our livestock producers and their families. The message from the House of Commons would be that their animals matter, Canadian agriculture matters, our food security matters and, most importantly for farm families across the country, their livelihoods matter. We care about their mental health. We recognize the unwavering dedication our farmers and farm families have for the well-being of the animals in their care.
I again thank all colleagues who spoke so well and shared many of their personal sentiments on farmers and operations in their ridings across Canada and who echoed the concerns and viewpoints of their constituents in the House today. For colleagues who do not necessarily come from an agricultural or rural riding, it is important that we share this message not only with our rural communities but certainly with urban Canadians, who may not have a wealth of knowledge or experience regarding what Canadian agriculture is, how we do it, why we do it and the very strict regulations and protocols in biosecurity we must follow to ensure the security of our food supply.
I thank my colleagues for their support and hope they will continue to support Bill C-275. I also thank farmers and farm families across Canada so much for their support.
717 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I find it interesting to rise today on Bill C-355, an act to prohibit the export by air of horses for slaughter. I think it is important in this House, whenever we debate legislation that is going to impact the livelihoods of thousands of Canadians, that we ensure that legislation is based on sound science and data from experts, and not on a motion. This legislation, I would argue, is based on a motion, and not on science or data.
This bill would not only ban horses, but would impact a number of industries in Canada with maybe unintended consequences. Listening to my colleague, the hon. member for Kitchener—Conestoga, who tabled this legislation, it is clear to me that he did not listen to the experts, and those who understand this industry intimately and know exactly what is going on with the horses that are transported and exported out of Canada.
In fact, I do not think this member did his due diligence in tabling this legislation. If he listened to experts, he would not have tabled this legislation at all. He used the word “cramped” many times in his speech. In fact, it is in the preamble of his bill. Based on international animal transportation regulations, in Canada the space for those horses is almost twice that of the international regulations. They are not cramped. That is just one aspect of what he is talking about.
The focus of my speech will be the unintended consequences of this legislation and how they would impact a number of other industries. I do not believe the Liberals did their homework before tabling this legislation, which is trying to appease a very niche activist agenda.
First, I want to go with the facts. This is not something, as my colleague said, that we can just sign off on, for one's horse to be transported or exported. This has to be a declaration from the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food. It is not something that anyone can sign off on. This would add burdensome red tape and delays that would impact a number of industries across Canada.
In fact, the pilots and customs officers would have the responsibility of having this declaration approved by the minister prior to flights leaving Canada. No other commodity in Canada has to take on that kind of responsibility.
The Canadian Food Inspection Agency has incredibly strict safety regulations when it comes to transporting livestock. We already had a question from the Bloc member, who asked what is next. We are starting with horses. What is next? Will it be cattle, pork or chickens? My colleague is saying that is not the case, but this is opening the door to exactly that.
The facts are that the regulations we have in Canada are impeccable and among the best in the world. Since 2013, 41,000 horses have been exported for the purpose of slaughter. The mortality rate on those transports is 0.012%. Those are the facts. The member is making it sound like this is a horrific nightmare of an industry. No deaths have occurred for horses since 2014. Those are the facts and that is the data.
The member is right. There are about 350 horse breeders across Canada, mainly in Alberta, Manitoba and Ontario. They are purposely breeding horses for this reason. He is talking about the RCMP horses and the pony horses. These are not the types of horses we are talking about. These are not broken pets that are being sent off for food sources. These are horses that are specifically bred for this industry.
In fact, a quarter of those breeders are indigenous. About 40% of the horses that are exported from Canada are raised by indigenous breeders. I want to talk about a member of the Métis Nation of Alberta who provided a statement to me. They are very upset about not being consulted on this legislation. The statement reads:
We are trying to keep and pass on Metis traditions for our families including working with horses. Just like most Metis, we are not in a position, financially, to keep horses only for recreational use. Our farms are not sustainable without the meat horse industry.... Indian Reserves and Metis settlements were not designated on prime...farmland but raising horses is a way to utilize this land into something profitable.
Many first nations and Métis groups that I have spoken with are extremely upset that they were not consulted on how this bill would affect them.
I have a number of letters from other industry stakeholders who were also not consulted before this bill was tabled. I am not sure who the member spoke to, but I have a pretty good idea.
Equestrian Canada has strong reservations with this bill and how it would impact its events. The regulatory burden by the Minister of Agriculture to approve every horse transported by air would cause unnecessary red tape and time delays for these events. This would jeopardize international competitions in Canada and around the world, like the Olympics, the Pan Am Games and other Equestrian Canada events.
My colleague from Milton talked about Woodbine. If the legislation passes, Woodbine is not going to have international horses coming to compete at that event. For example, competitors would question whether or not to attend events in Canada, like the Masters at Spruce Meadows and the Calgary Stampede, because they would not want to have to deal with these new regulations that are time consuming, and the burdensome red tape, like getting an affidavit or a declaration from the Minister of Agriculture. These events bring billions of dollars of economic opportunities to our rural communities and they would be lost. Again, this would be an unintended consequence, because the Liberals did not do their homework and are trying to appease a very niche group.
Another group, the Air Line Pilots Association of Canada, which represents 77,000 airline pilots, is also opposing this bill, because if pilots did not have that declaration from the Minister of Agriculture, a responsibility they do not want to take on, something they do not have to do at this time, they would be facing a $250,000 fine as a result of this legislation. Airlines pilots around the world do not want to deal with this. They understand that livestock is a cargo they carry, but this is an unrealistic and impractical administrative responsibility they do not want to take on.
Proper animal care and welfare are paramount to livestock producers across Canada and our existing transport laws reflect that with the most up-to-date scientific research and regulations. This is proven in the data, with not a single fatality in almost 20 years and infinitesimal injuries, but this is data the Liberal member is ignoring.
This bill has no basis in fact and is another attack by the Prime Minister and the Liberal government on Canadian agriculture and agri-food industries. What the member refused to mention is that more than a billion people around the world rely on this meat for a major part of the protein in their diet, including in Japan, Mexico, Italy, Russia, China and, yes, Canada. Canadians still eat horse meat for a major part of their protein, which in many cases is healthier than beef, but do not tell my cattle producers in Alberta I said such a thing.
Therefore, I would ask my colleagues in the House of Commons to vote against Bill C-355. It is imperative we have legislation tabled in this House, but this is legislation that would impact not only livestock producers but industries across Canada.
My colleague has said that he has a very narrow focus to this bill to ensure it only includes horses, but he did not do his due diligence. Clearly, this legislation would impact a number of other industries. The Liberals did not consult with first nations and Métis communities across Canada. They did not consult with airlines, airline associations and pilot associations. They did not consult with equestrian groups and major event hosts, like the Calgary Stampede, Spruce Meadows, Woodbine and those events that happen across Canada, nor with the athletes themselves who would travel not only across Canada, but around the world. Canadian equestrian athletes would no longer be competing in Canada because they do not want to take the risk of losing their horse or missing events because of the burdensome red tape and regulations this bill entails.
Most importantly, it is imperative that the legislation that comes to this House is based on science, data and the experts who know exactly what they are talking about. I think the member had the opportunity to speak with Ms. Woods, the premier expert in this industry, who has told him that everything in this bill is based on rhetoric and falsehoods. I hope the members of this House will see through this and make sure that we make decisions based on science and vote against Bill C-355.
1523 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
moved that the bill be read the third time and passed.
He said: Mr. Speaker, it is an honour and a privilege to rise in the House today and speak again to my private member's bill, Bill C-275, an act to amend the Health of Animals Act. I would like to thank all the members of the agriculture and agri-food committee who participated in the study of this bill and worked with our witnesses and stakeholders to try to bring this forward.
I do want to take a moment to thank all of the stakeholders who have supported this bill from the beginning: the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, the Canadian Cattle Association, the Canadian Meat Council, the Canadian Pork Council, Dairy Farmers of Canada, Egg Farmers of Canada, Turkey Farmers of Canada, the National Cattle Feeders' Association, Alberta Farm Animal Care and Canada's Accredited Zoos and Aquariums.
During the committee discussion, we did have one amendment to this legislation, which included removing the words “knowing that or being reckless as to”. This is some clarification for my colleagues in the Liberal Party and NDP and I do appreciate their participation.
The second amendment was to lower some of the penalties as part of this for unlawful trespassers, but one amendment to remove penalties for groups and organizations that encourage this unlawful behaviour was not successful. It is not surprising that animal activist groups wanted these penalties removed from this legislation. These groups encourage this unlawful behaviour, which is a fundraising mechanism for them. For example, in the United States alone last year, these groups raised more than $800 million and organized more than 500 attacks on farms across the United States. We do not have specific statistics in terms of fundraising and numbers in Canada, but we do know that Canada ranks seventh in the world in the number of attacks on farms by animal activist groups.
These producers and farm families are subjected to vandalism, cyber-attacks, tampering on farm and arson, but, most important, relentless intimidation and harassment. This takes its toll on farm families across Canada. It jeopardizes the biosecurity on farms and certainly the health and welfare of our livestock. Most important, we heard at committee that these illegal intrusions have a long-lasting impact on the mental health of our farm families.
We had a hog farmer from B.C., Mr. Binnendyk. His family went through having 200 protesters on his family farm. I want to quote Mr. Binnendyk's comments at committee. He said:
[I]t affected us as a family,...for a number of years it was basically like you were...being watched. We used to be proud to be hog producers. Now we don't tell anyone. The perception that people have about us has all been spread by lies and stuff that are not true. It takes the fun out of what you do.
There aren't many farmers left, especially in B.C. There used to be 300 [hog] producers in the nineties. I do believe there are now [only] four or five producers left. It's a dwindling...industry, [to be] sure.
We also had Megz Reynolds, who is the executive director of The Do More Agriculture Foundation, which is an important advocacy group for mental health on farms. I want to quote some comments from Ms. Reynolds as well, from committee. She said:
[These] people showing up and trespassing [and protesting] are not whistle-blowers. They don't necessarily understand what that farmer needs [or what they] do to take care of that animal and what that animal means to that farmer.
I've talked to farmers, men, across Canada, and they tear up when they talk about having to cull a full barn in response to [a] disease....
I talked to a producer in Saskatchewan, and she does not feel safe to send her children out to fix fences by themselves because of the perceived risk from protesters. These are actual things happening on farms today, where in rural Canada our farm families do not feel safe on the land that they have nurtured and cared for, in many cases for generations.
I cannot be more crystal clear about this point in this legislation: This bill would not hinder in any way an individual's right to protest on public property. This bill would not prevent whistle-blowers from coming forward when they see standards of care not being met. In fact, whistle-blowers would be protected under this proposed legislation because they would be lawfully allowed to be on the premise with the animals.
Canadian farmers and ranchers have a moral and legal obligation to look after their animals. Farmers operate in a highly regulated system, and the environment and strict codes of conduct must be followed to ensure the health, safety and welfare of farm animals.
It was also highlighted at committee in testimony that people are showing up on farms who are not whistle-blowers. Activists are not whistle-blowers. True whistle-blowers are family members, employees, veterinarians and professionals like CFIA inspectors who understand the nuances of animal husbandry. They understand the livestock industry. They know what they are looking for if standards are not being met.
Members from all parties recounted situations in their ridings where they saw these activities happening and the impact that it had on our farmers and constituents. What worried me, from some of the testimony at committee, is how brazen some of these activists have become. They are putting not only farmers and farm animals at risk, but also the public. We saw an animal rights group in Montreal hang three dead hog carcasses from an overpass. The consequences of that could have been devastating.
We heard from a farmer in Ontario who was attacked by ransomware. His farm and his operation were held hostage unless he admitted publicly that he was mistreating his animals, which we know was utterly false. Mr. Binnendyk said there used to be 300 hog farmers in B.C., and now there is only a handful. The activist campaigns will work to end animal agriculture if there is not a strong deterrent in place.
Opponents of this bill will say there is no proof of animal activism spreading disease. There are two problems with that argument. First, they are missing the whole point of our current situation. It is short-sighted to have an argument that justifies unlawful behaviour that could lead to unimaginable consequences on a farm. Second, it is completely false. We had one incident in Quebec with an outbreak of rotavirus, a disease not seen in almost 40 years, after trespassers were on a hog farm there. Trespassers also went on a mink farm in Ontario, which spread distemper throughout the community, again as a result of trespassing.
Another argument is that some provinces have trespassing and biosecurity laws in place. That is true, but only Alberta, Saskatchewan, Ontario, Manitoba and P.E.I. That means the vast majority of provinces and territories do not have this type of legislation in place. I think it is very important that we show leadership from a national perspective, a federal government perspective, that says we understand the importance of biosecurity on farms, the importance of food security and the fact that public protests have a place but that place is not private property.
Most importantly, what this bill talks about is ensuring that biosecurity protocols on farm are adhered to and protect our food security from diseases like the avian flu, African swine fever, and foot and mouth disease, which pose very real threats to Canadian agriculture. In 2014, the Fraser Valley had 10 farms with avian flu outbreaks, and almost 200,000 animals had to be euthanized. The worst outbreak was in 2004, when 17 million birds had to be euthanized. That outbreak eventually cost the industry about $300 million in losses. In the aftermath, a number of changes occurred to ensure that biosecurity protocols were more strict and were adhered to.
In the most recent outbreak of avian flu, which we had this past year, 7.6 million birds had to be euthanized. The provinces of B.C., Alberta, Quebec, Ontario and Saskatchewan were the hardest hit. Farmers are still trying to recover from this outbreak, replacing flocks, cleaning out barns and getting their operations back up.
Cammy Lockwood, the owner-operator of Lockwood Farms on Vancouver Island, who, ironically, has free-range chickens and sells eco eggs, talked about the importance of this legislation for protecting their farms from trespassers who very well could be bringing the avian flu virus onto their farms. They have very strict protocols.
Many of us as parliamentarians have visited farms in our ridings or neighbouring ridings and understand that many times we have to wear booties, hairnets and haz-mat suits and have to clean our shoes before and after leaving farms. When we travel, we are asked if we have visited a farm in the last two weeks. That is important for not spreading viruses, but that is how easy it is to spread them and it cannot be overlooked.
One example is African swine fever, which thankfully we have not had in Canada. Unfortunately, it is not a matter of if, but likely a matter of when it will come to Canada. When the first case of African swine fever occurred in China in 2018, it spread to every single province in that country in less than a year. It has since spread to the Asia-Pacific, central Asia and eastern Europe and has now been detected in the Dominican Republic.
Although it is not a food risk, 100% of animals that come down with African swine fever have to be put down. If an outbreak were to happen in Canada, it would be absolutely devastating. Our Canadian pork industry has a $24-billion economic footprint in Canada. It employs more than 45,000 people, and almost 70% of our production, which is worth $4.25 billion, is exported to markets around the world.
Unfortunately, many of us in Canada understand and still feel the ramifications of bovine spongiform encephalopathy, BSC, which happened more than 20 years ago. It cost our cattle industry and was very impactful in my riding of Foothills. I know it was much the same for my Alberta colleagues.
It cost us almost $10 billion. In western Canada we lost 3,000 ranches. The vast majority of those ranches have never come back. Our animal herd in Canada is significantly lower 25 years later. It shows us the very real consequences of an animal-borne disease and what it can do to our industries across Canada. This is very real. It can happen. We do not want it to happen again.
If there are any lessons we can take, I look back to what happened over only the last couple of years with COVID. I think if any of us had a chance to go back in time, we would have done things differently. We would have been much better prepared to ensure we had the resources in place to protect Canada. We cannot make that same mistake.
Members can imagine the consequences if we had an animal-borne virus pandemic in Canada with any of these types of diseases. That is why strengthening the biosecurity of our farms is so critical, which is what this legislation is focused on doing. Certainly, these groups are raising money off of these endeavours and threatening the mental health of our farmers.
Most importantly, I hope my colleagues in the House will support protecting the biosecurity of farms and our food security here in Canada and around the world. I look forward to their questions.
1972 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, it truly is an honour to speak in support of our opposition day motion for the Liberals not to increase the carbon tax.
I want to read a couple of quotes from agriculture producers I met with this summer, including a farmer in Ontario who told me the only threat to the success of his family farm is Liberal government policy. A Saskatchewan farmer said, “When it comes to farming, I feel like I'm digging my own grave to follow my dream.”
In fact, a recent survey showed that the biggest stressor for Canadian farm families is not commodity prices and it is not weather. It is government policy and regulation. I would say, for the first time, Canadian farmers see their government as an adversary, not an ally. This is having a huge impact on the financial and mental health of our Canadian farmers.
According to a survey on farmer mental health by the University of Guelph, 75% of farmers have mid to high stress levels and farmers are four times more likely to commit suicide than any other part of the general population. This is the kind of stress and anxiety that our Canadian farm families are facing, and their number one stressor is the policies and regulations imposed on them by the Liberal government.
I will take a moment to look at a couple of them before I get in depth on the carbon tax. Last November, the Minister of Environment and Climate Change announced there would be a fertilizer emissions reduction of 30%, with no consultation and no idea exactly what that would mean. However, now it is putting further pressure on Canadian farm families regarding what they are going to do to make themselves economically viable as the government takes away some of the most important tools they have.
Why is the government not looking at our hard-working Canadian farm families, our innovators, our agri-food businesses and our researchers as a critical part of the climate change solution? It is almost looking at them with disdain, instead of looking at them as part of the solution. For example, in 1981, the average farmer was getting about 27 bushels to the acre. Now they are getting more than 50, but the kicker is that they are doing that on less than half of the acreage, significantly reducing their carbon footprint. Do they get any credit for that whatsoever? No, they do not. On average, we are 50% more efficient in fertilizer use than any other country on the face of the earth. Do Canadian farmers get any credit for that? No, they do not.
Instead, when it came to this fertilizer emissions reduction policy, here is the narrative the Liberal government should have had. When the European Union started making massive cuts to fertilizer use in livestock production, that was its decision, but the Liberal government should have said, if there is an issue in the European Union, why not look at what we are doing here in Canada? Why not look at our innovators, our farmers, our experience, our technology, practices like precision farming, variable rates, 4R nutrient stewardship and show Canadians just how impressive Canadian agriculture is? Instead, its fallback every single time is to look at Canadian farmers, much like it does our energy workers, as the enemy rather than part of the solution.
According to the Parliamentary Budget Officer, even if the carbon tax is increased to $170 a tonne, does anyone know what the impact on emissions from agriculture is? It is zero. The reason is that there are no other options. Farmers right now, many of them use combines and they cannot fuel them with anything other than diesel. As one of my Liberal colleagues told me a few months ago, they cannot put a solar panel on top of those machines. They run 24-7. They do not have any other options. This is what they do to ensure that they can not only feed Canadians but feed the world.
Now I would like to focus on the carbon tax specifically. We heard it again today in question period. In answer to a question from one of my colleagues, the parliamentary secretary said that farmers are exempt from the carbon tax on all farm fuels. That is patently not true. Some fuels are exempt, but fuels like natural gas and propane are still subject to the carbon tax. The Liberals are either misleading Canadian farmers or they really do not understand their own policy. The parliamentary secretary said in committee that, even talking to farmers in his riding, and he talked about it again in question period today, we have Bill C-8. We have a farm carbon tax rebate.
The message from the Liberals is always that the carbon tax is revenue neutral. We now know from Ontario grain farmers, from the Department of Finance and from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture that this is also not true. Farmers are getting less than 30% and in some cases less than 15% of what they are paying in carbon tax, through that rebate from the Liberal government.
In fact, the Department of Finance said that the average farmer was getting $800 a year through the carbon tax rebate. I have seen the carbon tax bills from some of my farmers, especially large poultry operations, large dairy operations and certainly our grain growers here in Ontario, who are drying grain or heating barns. Their carbon tax bills are in the thousands and sometimes tens of thousands of dollars a month.
When we hear the finance department say that it is revenue neutral because the farmers are getting $800 a month, that is a slap in the face to Canadian producers who are certainly carrying the burden of the carbon tax. It has basically become wealth distribution on the back of Canadian agriculture. When a Canadian farmer is getting between 13% and, on a good day, up to maybe 30% for their carbon tax rebate, members can see why, as the opposition in the Conservative Party, we are so adamant that we cannot see this carbon tax continue to rise and triple to $170 per tonne.
The Canadian Federation of Independent Business also ratified and confirmed the numbers from the Grain Farmers of Ontario, saying that, in the first year, the average farmer paid about $14,000 in carbon tax. After it went up this previous April 1, the average farmer is now paying $45,000 in carbon taxes. My math is not always the greatest, but between $45,000 and $800 there is a big gap, which certainly shows that the carbon tax is not revenue neutral.
The frustrating thing is that the finance department know it and the Minister of Agriculture knows it, and the Liberals continue to allow this to happen. The Minister of Agriculture is complicit in seeing Canadian farmers being taxed to death. They are going to be losing their businesses.
We have put forward two private members' bills: one in the previous Parliament and one in this Parliament. The one in this Parliament is Bill C-234, which would exempt the carbon tax from all farm fuels. I am very happy to say that we have the support of all the opposition parties, which include the Conservatives, the Bloc, the New Democrats and the Greens. The holdout is the Liberal Party, the government, which still does not see that this was an error. The carbon tax should be exempt on all farm fuels and not just a couple. This is imperative to the financial success of Canadian farmers.
Farmers are the ones who are paying the carbon tax over and over again. When buying fuel, buying feed, buying fertilizer, transporting grain and transporting cattle, they are paying the carbon tax every single time. Here is the kicker: Many Canadian consumers see this as an agriculture problem and a rural issue, but farmers have nowhere to pass those costs on to. The result of that is seeing food prices go up more than 10%, which is the highest rate of inflation on food in more than 40 years. This impacts every single Canadian in every single corner of the country, as many Canadians are unable to put food on the table.
By tripling the carbon tax, which we are asking the Liberals not to do in a time of record inflation, they are demanding Canadians to pay more to fuel their out-of-control spending. They are demanding seniors to pay more. They are demanding that youth pay more. They are demanding single mothers to pay more. They are demanding our small business owners to pay more. They are certainly demanding our Canadian farmers to pay more. It is nonsensical, especially in a time of global food insecurity, when we need our Canadian agriculture to be firing on all cylinders to meet the demand that we are going to see, not only here at home but also around the world.
Therefore, I am asking my colleagues from all parts of the House to support our opposition day motion to ensure the financial and mental health of our Canadian farmers first and foremost because they are part of the solution. They are not the problem.
1558 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/7/22 1:38:11 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I agree, but I think the part that we are missing here is that there is an assumption that Canadian producers are not doing everything they can to protect their land, their water, their soil and their livestock. They want to be as efficient as possible, because that is how they remain environmentally sustainable and socially sustainable, but the one critical point is to remain economically sustainable.
Yes, our farmers are always concerned about being stewards of their land. They are the ones who are on the ground. I appreciate that this is an important message as well.
100 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/28/22 6:20:43 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-8
Madam Speaker, I will not get into arguing with my colleague about which riding is nicer. He brings up a very good point. I always appreciate the opportunity to highlight that yes, in my riding, I am the heart of cattle country and Alberta beef. We also take a lot of pride in the fact that we are protecting one of the most endangered ecosystems on planet earth and that is Canada's grasslands.
I know Canadians find that somewhat surprising at times, but the grassland ecosystem is more endangered than the coral reefs and the rainforests. It is so critical that our ranchers and our livestock producers take care to protect that grassland. Once it is gone, it is irreplaceable. It is so important for carbon sequestration and for carbon sinks that we protect that land so it is not developed for urban sprawl or any other options. It is critical that we protect that diversity.
157 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
