Evidence of meeting #29 for Agriculture and Agri-Food in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was farmers.
A recording is available from Parliament.
5:35 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Kody Blois
Thank you, Mr. Carey and Mr. Perron.
I now turn the floor over to Mr. MacGregor.
5:35 p.m.
NDP
Alistair MacGregor NDP Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I want to continue on the same line of questioning.
One of the big differences between Bill C-234 and the previous bill, Bill C-206, is the addition of a new paragraph 1(1)(b.1) that defines “eligible farming machinery” as:
property used for the purpose of providing heating or cooling to a building or similar structure, including those used for raising or housing livestock;
When I first read this, it seemed to be fairly vague.
Mr. Carey, I think you mentioned earlier that you definitely want to see greenhouses and livestock mentioned. Do you think the wording could be tightened up a little bit in this particular section?
5:35 p.m.
Co-Chair, Agriculture Carbon Alliance
I'm not a lawyer, but it's certainly.... Greenhouses already have an 80% exemption currently, so the parent legislation referred to earlier is certainly already there. I would certainly defer to the lawyers and drafters, but the intention of the bill is that it be for a building that heats or cools livestock or for greenhouses. As long as that is there, I wouldn't want to get overly prescriptive with the committee.
We did hear the CRA say on the last iteration of Bill C-206 that it was too broad and too vague. I believe the intention of this bill is actually to be more specific, recognizing that what you might call a building or something in one province might be different in another province.
5:35 p.m.
NDP
Alistair MacGregor NDP Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC
Quickly, because I don't have a lot of time, if we are going to keep this in there, there have been some suggestions about tightening up the language and putting in a sunset clause. Do you think that farmers could be meeting us halfway? If we're going to provide them some relief on the cost, do you think there should also be some better investment incentives to make their buildings more efficient? If we're going to give them a break on the energy costs, there should also be a quid pro quo to try to make the energy loss as small as possible.
5:35 p.m.
Co-Chair, Agriculture Carbon Alliance
Yes, I think within the scope of a PMB, they can ponder only one act, but I would suggest that putting in a sunset clause would be appropriate. I would caution the committee about being overly draconian about that. If it's 10 years, I think that is appropriate, but you could add an order in council provision to allow the government of the day to make the right decision—sunset it, extend it, rescind it, or whatever it might be—based on where it is. What I wouldn't want to see is this committee and our successors 10 years down the road having the same conversations around on-farm usage.
I believe, absolutely to your point, that it would require additional legislation of government programs and funding to incentivize a further investment. I believe a PMB is fairly surgical and narrow in scope.
5:35 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Kody Blois
Thank you.
Thank you to our witnesses.
To Mr. Carey, to Mr. Ross, Mr. Guénette, Madam Brown, and Monsieur Legault, thank you very much for providing important testimony today on Bill C-234.
Colleagues, just before we break, I want to give you a bit of an update in terms of what we're planning to do on Wednesday. We do have three individuals who have been confirmed. We have Ghislain Gervais, president of the Sollio Group; Dennis Prouse, vice-president of government affairs with CropLife Canada; and Mark Thompson, executive vice-president of Nutrien, all of whom have confirmed.
It is no secret that Mr. MacGregor has certainly introduced the concept of a new study. Mr. Perron has given us notice of a particular motion that he might like to move, and Mr. Lehoux would like to be able to move a motion as it relates to Minister Fraser in this committee. I've asked those three gentlemen not to move their motions today so that we didn't have to disrupt this meeting, but we are going to set aside one hour on Wednesday. It will be a public forum. If the committee chooses to move in camera, that's their choice, but it will start as a public meeting to discuss those motions. It will be committee business so that we can deal with those motions without disrupting the rest of our preprogrammed schedule. It will be for the benefit of our witnesses.
Colleagues, that's just a sense of what's going to be happening. We will let you know whether the witnesses will be in the first hour or the second. Our desire is to have them in the first hour so that we could move to committee business in the second to discuss the motions that are intended to be moved at that time.
Thank you, everyone.
The meeting is adjourned.