Government throttles feedback on animal health

By the time this column is printed, the McGuinty Government will have been successful in shutting down debate in the latest attempt to silence an increasingly vocal opposition.

Whether it be closure, or use of time allocation motions, government is again using procedure to choke-off debate on a number of bills including the latest - the Animal Health Act.

By restricting hearings to four hours in Toronto on the afternoon of November 25, Mr. McGuinty seems to be doing all he can to ensure MPP’s are protected from any dissent.

The unfortunate thing is that animal health and many of the concepts that are driving Bill 204 - concepts of traceability and food safety – are ideas all concerned can support. We in Opposition support the principle of the bill – as does the Ontario Federation of Agriculture, and the Ontario Cattlemen – unfortunately we are not being given adequate opportunity to point where the legislation could be improved.

In particular, while there is much we can agree on, there are concerns that compensation is at the Minister’s discretion; that traceability is largely absent from this bill, and that inspectors are being given further powers of warrantless entry.

In a submission outlining their views regarding Bill 204, the OFA made it clear that compensation is a vital component of the legislation that must be accommodated.

Costs incurred by farmers and the food industry must have a mechanism to be transmitted down the market chain to be absorbed by the consumer, or otherwise covered by government assistance programs, according to the OFA.

So many young farmers, particularly beginning hog farmers, regrettably are falling through the cracks instead of getting assistance from the Ontario Cattle, Hog and Horticulture payment program. I’ve reported in the past on the case of a young farmer – Wayne Bartels in Haldimand - at the point where he can’t even pay his electricity bill. To legislate further costs and reporting requirements without spelling out compensation in the bill leaves too many unanswered questions.

Traceability - to track and connect food to the processes, farms, and ultimately animals it came from - is largely absent from the bill itself. Government has indicated it will be in regulation, meaning MPP’s and stakeholders won’t get a chance to be part of the process.

I do hope that once government fills in the blanks, it heeds the concerns of stakeholders asking that existing traceability systems set up by agricultural organizations, such as the Canadian Cattle Identification Agency, will be allowed to continue under the new system.

The Animal Health Act is one of a series of bills to go down the road of being heavy-handed, including allowing inspectors to enter premises, other than one's house, without a warrant.

With all of these concerns in mind, it is important that MPP’s have the opportunity for fulsome debate and the public have a bona fide opportunity to weigh-in on concerns.

Unfortunately Bill 204 will probably be law by the time livestock organizations in Haldimand and Norfolk, hold their winter meetings.

I would be very disappointed if this was rammed through before Christmas, before the annual meetings start – but unless government loosens its debate-choking grip, this bill will be history before the first snow flies.