Skip to main content

Third reading of Bill 62 - the Animal Diseases Amendment Act

 

On Thursday May 20, I  spoke at third reading on Bill 62  - The  Animal Diseases Amendment Act.  My comments (from Hansard) are below:

Bill 62–The Animal Diseases Amendment Act

Hon. Jon Gerrard (River Heights): We are now at third reading of this Animal Diseases Amendment Act. We believe that biosecurity is important, and we've seen in the pandemic the concerns that can exist from problems with biosecurity. The virus, which was initially in an area of Wuhan–there were not adequate measures taken, and it has spread globally and we have a major pandemic.

      Now, there are diseases in pigs and in other animals which can also spread and cause havoc among animal populations and in some cases may spread to human populations. So we see that biosecurity must be taken very seriously, and we will support this bill.

* (16:10)

      However, we do not agree with measures which appear to be suppressing the ability of people to protest. Indeed, it has been raised with us that aspects of this bill are probably unconstitutional because they limit rights of peaceable assembly and that this bill is likely to be subject to the court challenge and it is likely to be struck down.

      In the report stage, we moved amendments which would have sought to provide some reassurance to those who are protestors and for those who are concerned about what is happening with animal rights. And these measures would have reaffirmed the ability of individuals to assemble peaceably in public locations, so long as they're not disturbing the transportation of the animals. These measures–these report stage amendments–would have allowed people to take photographs of the truck and the transportation.

      Both of these are reasonable and we believe that this bill should have been changed to include these measures and that these measures might have helped this bill to be seen to be more fair and more reasonable than it was and is under the original design.

Mr. Dennis Smook, Acting Speaker, in the Chair

      So, while we have sought for changes and a compromise which would have meant that those individuals who are concerned about the health of animals and to ensure that they have rights and abilities to watch what's happening, there, of course, also needs to be appropriate inspections and care. But there remains an important issue of biosecurity. And because the biosecurity issue is of such importance at this juncture, as we're seeing with the pandemic, then we will support this legislation and vote yes.

      Thank you, merci, miigwech.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Comparison between Manitoba and South Dakota shows dramatic impact of Physical Distancing

Manitoba implemented physical distancing measures in mid-March.  South Dakota has still not made physical distancing mandatory.   The result is a dramatic difference in the incidence of covid-19 viral infections between the two jurisdictions.   This graph shows the number of people with Covid-19 infections from March 27 to April 14.  Manitoba ( red line )  started leveling off about April 4 and has seen only a small increase in Covid-19 infections since then.   South Dakota ( blue line )   has seen a dramatic increase in Covid-19 infections since April 4.  Those who are skeptical of the impact of physical distancing in Manitoba should look at this graph! Data are from the Johns Hopkins daily tabulations

Pushing for safe consumption sites and safe supply to reduce overdose deaths

  On Monday June 20th, Thomas Linner of the Manitoba Health Coalition, Arlene Last-Kolb Regional Director of Moms Stop the Harm and Winnipeg City Councillor Sherri Rollins were at the Manitoba Legislature to advocate for better measures to reduce deaths from drug overdoses, most particularly for safe consumption sites and for a safe supply, measures which can reduce overdose deaths.  

Dougald Lamont speaks out strongly against the "reprehensible", "legally and morally indefensible" Bill 2

 Early in the morning, just after 3 am, on November 6th, Dougald Lamont spoke at third reading of Bill 2, the Budget Implementation and Statutes Amendment Act.  He spoke strongly against the bill because it attempts to legitimize a historic injustice against children in the care of child and family services.  As  Dougald says this bill is " the betrayal of children, First Nations and the people of this province. " Mr. Dougald  Lamont  (St. Boniface):   These are historic times. This is an  historic budget, for all the wrong reasons.  I was thinking of the Premier's (Mr. Pallister) comments about D-Day today and my relatives who served in combat in the First and Second World War. I had a relative who played for the Blue Bombers and served at D-Day with the Winnipeg Rifles because he was an excellent athlete, he made it quite a long way up the beach.       And had he lived until last year, he might have been one of the veterans the Premier insulted by not showing up at a