Agriculture Committee on Feb. 25th, 2020

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

We're live. Welcome back.

Go ahead, Mr. Barlow.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thanks to my colleagues for allowing us to go public. I'm just going to get my bagpipes and we'll get the blues going.

Mr. Chair, I'd like to table a motion for a study within the agriculture committee.

I think everyone has it in front of them. It was put on notice a couple of weeks ago. I believe this is something that's very timely for us as an agriculture committee with the numbers that are now coming out from associations like CAPP and Saskatchewan Egg Producers, and now from Ontario and other groups. Now we have some data to go with this, and certainly with the harvest that we've had this year, I think this is quite timely.

Do I need to read the motion into the record, Mr. Chair, or does everybody have it in front of them?

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

We have it in both languages.

Let's go ahead and read it.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

My motion is as follows:

That, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food, in light of the Agriculture Minister's public comments on needing more evidence of how the federal carbon tax is affecting farmers, and given the current fuel charge exemption under the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act does not include all fuels used on farms; that the Committee undertake a comprehensive study of the cumulative impact the federal carbon tax has on farming operations across Canada; that the study include an assessment of current agricultural practices and innovation already in place to improve conservation, reduce greenhouse gas emissions and improve management of the carbon cycle; that the study consist of at least 8 meetings; that the Committee at minimum hear from the Minister of Agriculture and department officials, producers, farm groups, commodity groups, provincial Agriculture Ministers and the Parliamentary Budget Officer; that the Committee report its findings, including its recommendations, to the House and that, pursuant to Standing Order 109, the Committee request that the Government table a comprehensive response to the report.

That is my motion. Mr. Chair, I think I've explained why. I think all of us on this committee would certainly have had calls or have met with representatives from our agriculture stakeholders over the last several months. The impact of this is profound. There's no getting around it.

I think the thing that we hear most often from our stakeholders is that they're not getting credit for the things they have done, or are doing, when it comes to carbon capture and storage, water conservation and those types of things. The question they're asking is whether they could somehow show evidence and data that they're doing more than what they're being charged, and get credit for some of those things.

Last night, a constituent from my riding sent me reams of documents on the carbon tax he is paying. It's albeit a larger operation, but it is $950,000 from now to the time 2022 arrives—it's unaffordable.

We are causing our producers irreparable harm if we continue down this road, and I think there is another way we can get around this, if we have definitive data and can show the minister what this is costing. We could give the government a good reason why there should be some exemptions, because of the carbon capture, because of the stewardship that they are doing.

Until we have data, until we can provide that to the minister, it's very difficult for her to make that decision. I think that's why this motion is so timely.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

Thank you, Mr. Barlow.

You've heard the motion. Are there any comments on it?

We have Mr. Blois.

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

I'd like to propose an amendment to Mr. Barlow's motion.

I'll seek some advice from you and perhaps the clerk on what is allowed. I didn't have the chance to have it translated, but I do have it here in English. I was wondering whether that could be something I could pass to the committee.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Sure.

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

I'm willing to be flexible on the language: “That, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food recognize that in order for the Government of Canada to meet its Paris Climate Accord, investments in rural communities, particularly the agriculture sector, will be key. Therefore, the committee shall study ways in which the Government of Canada can partner, support and/or invest directly on farms, to help farmers and producers reduce energy costs and adopt new technologies to reduce GHG emissions. The committee shall also study existing sustainability, carbon capture and GHG reduction initiatives already being used and practised by farmers and explore whether these could be expanded. The committee shall allocate at least eight meetings towards a study, unless a majority of its members agree otherwise. The committee shall allow, but is not limited to, industry stakeholders, experts and farmers to provide testimony on best practices, and to take into consideration the opportunities for investment to reduce GHG emissions across many different agricultural sectors, and that the committee prepare a report of its findings, including recommendations, to be tabled to the House.”

I guess what I would say on the record, as it relates to the fact of the price on pollution having an impact on farmers, is that I would like us to study how government can help farmers make that transition. How can we invest directly to make sure we can continue to move our environment mandate forward without being punitive, as I'm sure some of the members of your party suggest in the House day after day? That's where I think we should put our efforts.

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

Thank you.

Mr. MacGregor.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Now we have the amendment on the table. My only comment is that I appreciate that Mr. Barlow inserted some language in there that will guide our study towards the carbon sequestration efforts of farmers. I think those efforts have largely been cast aside in the debate on the carbon tax. It's pretty incredible when you look at the statistics of how well-managed agricultural practices can really put a lot of carbon into the ground.

I think there are some real opportunities to hear stories and to study the scientific evidence on that. Hopefully, that will lead to some government policy that recognizes the really important role that agriculture can play as one of our greatest weapons against climate change.

I'm not sure where this committee's going to go with the amendment versus Mr. Barlow's original motion, but all in all I think it's a worthwhile subject for us to be studying. I'll just limit my comments to that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

Thank you.

Can we just suspend for a minute so I can have a look at the amendment, just to make sure—

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Before you do that, Mr. Chair, if it's okay.... I appreciate what the department is doing with that amendment, but that's not an amendment. That is a whole different motion. An amendment is some tweaks here and there or some additions. That's a whole other motion.

No offence, Kody, but I would not be able to accept that as a friendly amendment. Unless there are some minor additions or subtractions to the motion I have tabled, that is an entirely different motion, in my opinion. I would suggest that if Kody wants to table that as his motion, he is more than welcome to do so. That is more than just an amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

Go ahead, Mr. Blois.

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

Mr. Chair, I believe it's close. I'm wondering if we could go in camera and I can have the opportunity.... I do have some other language here that might be more along the lines of what Mr. Barlow believes would be more suitable for an amendment. I don't know who determines what is suitable and what isn't—whether it's the clerk or you, Mr. Chair—but I'm happy to blend those two together to make sure we're not duplicating efforts down the line.

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

Okay.

I will suspend for a short period to compare the two and then make a ruling on whether we can blend the two or if they are two separate motions, as you say.

We'll suspend.

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

We're back in session.

We're working on the motion.

As for as the motion and the amendment, I have to say that they are separate. An amendment has to keep the main frame of the motion. You can amend words and lines, but these two are separate.

I understand there's been some work.

Mr. Blois.

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

Mr. Chair, this being my first time on the Hill, I apologize and I appreciate the efforts of Mr. Barlow to incorporate some of the theme of where I'm coming from as part of his motion. He can speak to that.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

The amendment is rejected, so do you have another amendment? I don't know how you want to proceed.

Mr. Barlow.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

I think we have come to a mash of the two motions into one that I think we can all support. My scribbling isn't great. I can write it out better, but I will read off what Kody and I have come together on, if that works for everyone.

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

You can amend your motion, so it probably would have to be an amendment.

Or you could withdraw your original motion and propose this one. That would be the other option.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

That's probably faster.

Okay, I'll withdraw my initial motion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

It has to be with the unanimous consent of the committee.

Do we have unanimous consent for Mr. Barlow to withdraw?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

(Motion withdrawn)

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Good team.

I will now table a second motion. I will read that as best as I can and give it to the clerk afterwards: “That, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food, recognizing that in order for the government to meet its Paris Climate Accord and investments in rural communities, and given the current fuel charge exemption under the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Act does not include all fuels used on farms, the committee undertake a comprehensive study of the cumulative impact of the carbon tax on farming operations in Canada. Therefore, the committee shall study ways to reduce energy costs and adopt new technology on farms and rural communities; that the study consist of at least eight meetings so the committee at a minimum hear from the Minister of Agriculture, department officials, producers, farm groups, commodity groups, provincial agriculture ministers and the Parliamentary Budget Officer; that the committee report its findings, including its recommendations, to the House; and that pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee requests that the government table a comprehensive response to the report.”

Basically, we've taken out the agriculture minister's comments, and inserted “to meet our Paris climate accord targets” and “investments in rural communities”. We've taken out a bit about the assessment of current agricultural practices and traded that with “Therefore, the committee shall study ways to reduce energy costs and adopt new technology on farms and rural communities”. It again gets that carbon capture, storage, carbon credits and that type of thing.