Agriculture Committee on May 11th, 2021

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

I call the meeting to order.

Welcome, all of you, to meeting number 32 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food. Pursuant to the order of reference of Wednesday, February 24, 2021 and the motion adopted on Thursday, April 22, the committee is commencing the clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-206, an act to amend the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act in regard to qualifying farming fuel.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format pursuant to the House order of January 25, 2021. Therefore, members are attending in person in the room and remotely using the Zoom application. The proceedings will be made available via the House of Commons website. The webcast will always show the person speaking, rather than the entirety of the committee.

I will take this opportunity to remind all participants that screenshots or taking photos of your screen are not permitted.

To ensure an orderly meeting, I would like to outline a few rules to follow. Before speaking, please wait until I recognize you by name. If you're on the video conference, please click on the microphone icon to unmute yourself. The microphones of participants in the room will be controlled as normal by the proceedings and verification officer.

Remember that all comments by members and witnesses must be directed through the chair. When you aren't speaking, your microphone should be on mute.

We'll get into the clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-206, and just to let you know, once we've done that, we'll go in camera. There's another link, so we'll have to disconnect and come back to go in camera for the business portion of this meeting.

We will start with Mr. Lawrence.

Mr. Lawrence, you have submitted an amendment, so I will give you the floor if you want to move that amendment.

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

Yes. I'd like to move the amendment as put forward to the clerk. This is the first of two amendments, and it is with respect to barn heating, so—you can see my daughter behind me—this is to include barn heating. Throughout the testimony, there were a number of stakeholders who said that barn heating should be included in this private member's bill, so that's the amendment we're putting forward.

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

Thank you, Mr. Lawrence, and good day to your daughter behind you. Hi.

I have looked at the amendment and have consulted with the procedure resource that we have, and my ruling on this is that the bill's only object is to add marketable natural gas and propane to the definition of “qualifying farming fuel”. The amendment would remove a part of the definition of “eligible farming machinery” that is not envisioned or amended by the bill.

House of Commons Procedure and Practice, in the third edition, states on page 770:

An amendment to a bill that was referred to a committee after second reading is out of order if it is beyond the scope and principle of the bill.

For the reasons stated above, the amendment is therefore inadmissible, as it goes beyond the scope of the bill as adopted at second reading by the House.

That is my ruling on that. It is not debatable. I can be challenged, but this is my ruling.

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

To be consistent with the tone of this committee and the discussions, and in the minority Parliament, I'll choose not to challenge the chair and will respect your ruling.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

Thank you, Mr. Lawrence.

We'll go to the second amendment, CPC-2.

Mr. Lawrence, you have the floor again, with your second amendment.

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

The second amendment is to include aviation fuel. This also came up in testimony and in consultation with our stakeholders, who said that aviation fuel could be used in an environmental way and that it's used in the protection of crops, no different from natural gas and propane—and I would also say diesel—as well as gasoline. There's really no reason it should be excluded from the exemption, so after consultations we decided to put this amendment forward.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

Thank you, Mr. Lawrence.

Is there any discussion on that?

Ms. Rood, you have the floor.

[Lianne Rood, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

I would just like to add to that discussion that aviation fuel is also used in the greenhouse industry a lot, as part of growing their crops, for shading greenhouses and removing the shade at the end of the season. It is a great expense to greenhouse growers to do that.

In the spirit of this bill, it would be great to include that, because it is a high-cost item and it's something that's absolutely essential for crop growing, as well as spraying in fields, I would add. For those who can't get to their fields with traditional sprayers and are using helicopters especially, and planes in some areas, to do the spraying of the crops, it is essential.

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

Mr. MacGregor, you have the floor.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Regarding CPC-2, I was searching witness testimony and I couldn't find any reference to any witness testimony talking about aviation gasoline. There was one reference to aviation that was made on April 29 by Mr. Ghatala, from Advanced Biofuels Canada.

I know that this amendment is in order, but my concern is that it's like mission creep. Adding aviation gasoline to this bill is a significant expansion from what the House voted on in principle at second reading.

As a first step, can Mr. Lawrence illuminate specifically where we had aviation gasoline mentioned? I couldn't find it in the testimony. Was it in a brief? I didn't see much reference to it during committee hearings on the bill.

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

Mr. Lawrence. Go ahead.

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

Thank you, sir.

Honestly, I don't have the exact point, but I do recall a couple of mentions of aviation. It is consistent with the bill in that we are looking to give equitable treatment across agriculture. Whether someone is using propane or whether they're using diesel, natural gas or aviation gasoline, these fuels are all of similar use and I think the logic holds up.

I would also say it's within the scope of the bill, as it is just an addition thereto.

I'll yield to my colleague. I see his hand is up.

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

Thank you, Mr. Lawrence.

Mr. Epp.

[Dave Epp, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Leamington, ON]

In support of what MP Lawrence was just saying, I can personally testify to the fact that we have used aviation fuel in our own cropping systems, so I fail to see how this inclusion would not be part of the scope that was contemplated by the House when it was moved to our committee.

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

Thank you, Mr. Epp.

Mr. Steinley.

[Warren Steinley, Conservative, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Mr. Chair, not to pile on, but there are many aerial spraying applicators in and outside of Regina that do this for a living. It is part of the agriculture industry and the agriculture sector where I am from, and throughout all of Canada, so I think it fits quite well with the mandate of this bill.

I will just leave it at that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

Thank you, Mr. Steinley.

I believe we have Mr. MacGregor again.

Mr. MacGregor, go ahead.

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

I don't want to belabour the point too much more. It's just that when I was first approached with the idea for a fix in this section, I think it was back in January 2020, the “before” times, before the pandemic hit us. I can remember speaking with the Keystone Agricultural Producers. A number of farmer organizations had identified the need to exempt natural gas and propane. There was a lot of conversation about the “harvest from hell”.

When Bill C-206 came about and I devoted a considerable amount of my second reading speech in support of the bill, the intent behind the bill was always to address the substantial grain-drying costs that farmers had. I've never, ever heard any arguments, up until this point, made in favour of expanding it to include aviation gasoline. Perhaps I could have been convinced back then, but we've gone so far along the process on Bill C-206 that to have this suddenly come forward like this doesn't give us a lot of time to really consider it fully.

That's my counterpoint, that I have yet to see the evidence that was presented at committee where substantive arguments were made in favour of adding aviation gasoline. As I said, I did a word search of all the witness testimony. There was only one mention of the word “aviation”. It wasn't aviation gasoline, and it was made on April 29. Unless I'm missing something from briefs, I understand the rationale behind it, but we haven't had the witness testimony really underlying and making the case for it up to this point.

I've always understood that it was for grain drying, and grain drying was the sole impetus behind this bill. In my opinion, this just seems like a bit of mission creep.

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

Thank you, Mr. MacGregor.

Mr. Lawrence, do you want to reply?

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

Yes. With the blessing of the chair, I'll withdraw this amendment, given Mr. MacGregor's convincing argument there. Obviously, in a minority Parliament, it's critical that we get as close to consensus as we can.

Mr. MacGregor has convinced me with his compelling argument, so with the consent of the chair, I will withdraw this amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

Thank you, Mr. Lawrence.

(Amendment withdrawn)

Thank you, Mr. MacGregor. You didn't want to reply, right?

Okay. With that, we'll go to NDP-1.

Mr. MacGregor, I'll give you the floor to talk about your amendment.

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

Thank you, colleagues.

My amendment essentially sets a sunset clause on this change to the definition. It will set a sunset, the clock will start ticking once the act receives royal assent, and it will give a 10-year window, after which the original definition of “qualifying farming fuel” will then be reinstated.

This was my attempt to try to find some middle ground between witness testimony we heard from groups like Farmers for Climate Solutions, the David Suzuki Foundation and the Pembina Institute versus people on the other side of the spectrum, farmers who we heard from themselves, like Mr. Serge Buy from the Agri-food Innovation Council, who I think quite clearly said that with the technology out there, other options are simply not commercially viable at present. He did mention 10 years as a conservative estimate, so I think this gives a 10-year window, up to the year 2031 if we receive royal assent on this bill. In that 10-year period, given the increasing challenges that are going to be faced with climate change, if we haven't found solutions by 2031, I'm going to be quite concerned at the state of our country and indeed the whole world.

This is my attempt to find a middle ground, recognizing that there are no viable alternatives at present, but also starting a clock for the reinstatement of the original definition so that we're all working with a timeline in mind and there's a bit of impetus to try to get those commercially viable options available to farmers as quickly as possible.

There's a whole other suite of policy options that I hope will be adopted in the interim. There are interesting things that can be done in rewarding farmers for sequestering carbon, and so on. I'm sure there will be more federal investments in clean technology, more efficient dryers, and so on. I hope colleagues will find that this is a fairly reasonable time frame to put in place.

I'll stop there.

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

Thank you, Mr MacGregor, for your comments on your amendment.

I see Mr. Steinley. I have to look twice, Mr. Steinley, with your new summer look, but I believe it's you in the photo.

[Warren Steinley, Conservative, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

It is me, and I appreciate that. I feel 10 years younger.

On this amendment, I am no fortune teller, but I believe Mr. MacGregor may be in this chamber for a long time. If he'd like to see some changes made to this bill, he will have the capacity and the capability to bring forward private member's bill changes to this legislation. That could be 10 years or 15 years, so why wouldn't the sunset clause be for 15 years?

I think we should pass this bill as is, and then, Mr. MacGregor.... If the technology comes to pass maybe even sooner, maybe in five years, we can make changes to the bill and see what Mr. MacGregor or anyone else wants to do with this bill going down the road. I don't want to state that we need to do a sunset clause now, because it could happen sooner. The technology could be there sooner, so it may not have to be a 10-year sunset clause.

Let's pass the bill as it is and leave other parliaments to deal with it in the future when that situation arises.

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

Thank you, Mr. Steinley.

Mr. MacGregor.