Agriculture Committee on Nov. 14th, 2022

[The Chair, Liberal, Kody Blois]

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome back, colleagues. It's great to see you all. I hope you had a great break in your ridings.

This is meeting number 36 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food. It doesn't seem like we've spent that much time, because it's always lovely to be with all of you.

I'm going to start with a few reminders. Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format. The proceedings will be made available via the House of Commons website. Just so you are aware, the webcast will always show the person speaking, rather than the entirety of the committee.

Of course, no screenshots are permitted.

Please be mindful of the Board of International Economy's guidelines for mask use and health protocols.

Colleagues, we know why we're here today: It's for clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-234, and as the name indicates, this is an examination of all the clauses in the order in which they appear in the bill.

I will call each clause successively, and each clause is subject to debate and a vote. If there are amendments to the clause in question, I will recognize the member proposing it, who may explain it. The amendment will then be open for debate.

When no further members wish to intervene, the amendment will be voted on. Amendments will be considered in the order in which they appear in the package. Each member will have received that package over the past week. If there are amendments that are consequential to each other, they will be voted on together.

Amendments have been given a number in the top right corner to indicate which party submitted them. There is no need for a seconder to move an amendment. Once you have moved an amendment, you will need unanimous consent to withdraw it.

Once every clause has been voted on, the committee will vote on the title and the bill itself, and an order to reprint the bill may be required if amendments are adopted, so that the House has a proper copy for use at report stage.

Finally, the committee will have to order the chair to report the bill back to the House. That report contains only the text of any adopted amendments as well as an indication of any deleted clauses.

I think that covers it.

I have a few more reminders just for your benefit. We're going to be asking for witness lists for the food price study by November 16 at noon. In speaking to folks during the last meeting prior to the break, we asked you to get prepared on that, so that should come as no surprise. If you're not able to have them right in on the 16th, this committee does generally work pretty well by consensus, but don't expect to have your witnesses up for the first couple of meetings if you don't have witnesses we can work with.

On the global food insecurity deadline—I've just seen this—we're going to be asking for recommendations by November 21 at noon so that the analysts can start to bring together that report accordingly.

Is there anything else, Madam Clerk, that I may have missed? Okay, we're fine.

We'll turn now to the actual amendments. We'll get started on the package.

(On clause 1)

I have first LIB-1, and that's from Mr. Turnbull. I'll turn it over to you, Mr. Turnbull, to introduce your proposed amendment.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

It's great to be here considering this bill again.

The amendment that I've proposed here in LIB-1 is to remove lines 4 to 10. That is to basically remove property that enables barn heating as an eligible piece of farming machinery from this bill.

Grain drying is one of the arguments that's been made over and over again. We've heard that in terms of technology and renewable energy, there aren't commercially viable solutions for grain drying. I think what we did here was...that there are tools for heating and cooling of barns and/or greenhouses. I think that's part of the rationale of why this should be removed.

We also know that one thing farmers can do is insulate their barns. It is a possibility for reducing their carbon footprint. It would also, in some senses, decrease their costs. Barns across Alberta, for example, have little or no insulation and depend almost solely on body heat from livestock. I think we heard this in some of the testimony.

It is possible to retrofit barns and greenhouses. It is possible to use solar and geothermal air source heat pumps. It is possible, currently, to insulate.

The other part of this that I think I should point out to members is that the current scope in the wording would be too broad. You can't really separate natural gas or propane usage from any of the other buildings on a farm. It's very difficult to do that when they're piped in with one pipe. The buildings' consumption would be very hard to figure out in relation to the other buildings on a farm. Certainly, I don't think what's being intended here is to give the homes and/or other buildings on a farm that are not for livestock an exemption.

Those are some of the arguments and rationales that I'm providing today. There certainly are commercially viable alternatives for the heating and cooling of barns and greenhouses.

Thank you, Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Kody Blois]

Thank you, Mr. Turnbull.

Ms. Taylor Roy, I saw your hand first, and then I have Mr. Barlow. We'll proceed in that order.

[Leah Taylor Roy, Liberal, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Turnbull, for introducing that amendment, which I support. I think you've given the reason that it's good.

We know that our farmers are with us on trying to reduce their carbon footprint and doing everything they can. We also know that the price on pollution was put in place to give a price signal to make sure that the cost of the pollution is incorporated when people are making decisions about how best to move forward. Obviously, insulating barns becomes a good investment choice when the cost of pollution is reflected in the cost of heating those barns. I think it does give the right incentive there.

I agree that grain drying is different. We've heard from farmers that there aren't alternatives, but we have heard that there are alternatives on the heating side.

I wanted to support Mr. Turnbull's amendment, but also amend it to include lines 16 to 19 as well. If lines 4 to 9 are deleted, then lines 16 to 19 should also be deleted, because they're referring to the same issue.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Kody Blois]

Colleagues, we have an amendment to the provisions that Mr. Lobb has in his proposed Bill C-234 from Mr. Turnbull. We now have a subamendment to that amendment from Ms. Taylor Roy.

Mr. Barlow, I saw your hand. I'll let you comment on either one of those elements.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

Quickly, I would just say that I'm not sure what testimony Mr. Turnbull was listening to when he says that barns aren't insulated and that heat pumps and biomass are commercially and economically viable at this time.

I would just move that we come to a vote on the proposed amendment from Ms. Taylor Roy. I think the testimony was pretty clear on this.

[The Chair, Liberal, Kody Blois]

Certainly my ruling as chair, Mr. Barlow, is that if someone wants to debate and continue to do this, they're welcome to.

I will look to my colleagues both on the screen and in this room to see if there's any further debate on both the subamendment that was proposed by Ms. Taylor Roy and the original amendment from Mr. Turnbull.

Is there any further debate or discussion?

Shall we call for a vote on the subamendment?

(Subamendment negatived: nays 6; yeas 5 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

We'll proceed to a vote on the original amendment by Mr. Turnbull.

(Amendment negatived: nays 6; yeas 5 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

That amendment is defeated as well. We now have amendment NDP-1.

Mr. MacGregor, I'll leave the floor to you to discuss your proposed amendment.

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

Thank you, Chair.

I hope that the wording of this amendment is a middle ground. I don't quite agree with the approach that was taken with the previous amendment, but I do take the point that the current wording of Bill C-234 is too broad. In fact, when I was speaking with legislative drafters, they did confirm that as Bill C-234 is currently written, it could mean any building on a property.

Since the subject nature of this bill deals with agriculture and agriculture-related buildings, I thought it prudent to narrow the scope of the wording to specify that this is going to a structure that is specifically used “for raising or housing livestock or for the growing of crops”.

We did hear a fair amount of testimony from various organizations involved in livestock, but we also received a helpful brief from the Fruit and Vegetable Growers of Canada. In a previous life, I worked on the construction of a large commercial greenhouse. Many of them still use gas-fired boilers, and we do want to see them transition, but these are systems worth millions of dollars, and it's not something that can happen overnight. I think that if we change this to narrow the scope and if Mr. Barlow is going to have a sunset clause proposed afterwards, we are narrowing the scope, but we're also narrowing the time that this measure would be in effect.

There's not much more to say. I'll leave it at that, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Kody Blois]

Thank you, Mr. MacGregor.

Is there any conversation, debate or discussion on the proposed amendment?

Mr. Perron, you have the floor.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

I'll be very brief.

We heard a lot of testimony in our study that stressed the importance of applying the temporary exemption to buildings as well. The idea is to ensure a balance, as Mr. MacGregor mentioned.

We have to make sure that the application of the act isn't too broad, but we still need to apply this exemption to buildings while the technologies are being developed and then made available. It was mentioned earlier that heating technologies would be available sooner than drying technologies. However, it will take time before we have access to the electrical power that's needed in the countryside, for example. So I will support this very reasonable proposal.

[The Chair, Liberal, Kody Blois]

Thank you, Mr. Perron.

Colleagues, is there any further debate or discussion? If not, we'll call this to a vote.

(Amendment agreed to: yeas 11; nays 0 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Thank you very much, colleagues. We'll now move to the first amendment from the Conservative Party, which is Mr. Barlow's proposed amendment.

Mr. Barlow, you have the floor to explain and outline your amendment.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

This amendment comes forward from the testimony we heard from many of the presenters who gave their time and talked not only about the impact the carbon tax is having on their operations but also the confidence they have that technology eventually will allow for a change in how they are heating their barns and drying their grain.

In conversation with our colleagues, we felt the sunset clause was certainly something that we could support. It would be an incentive for when the time comes when new technology is commercially as well as economically and regionally available. We know our farmers are always going to embrace innovation and new technology that makes their work more economically and environmentally sustainable, which are two important pillars. We are proposing to amend the PMB to have a 10-year sunset clause as part of the bill.

[The Chair, Liberal, Kody Blois]

Thank you, Mr. Barlow.

I open the floor to questions and comments from your colleagues. I do see Mr. Turnbull's hand.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Thanks, Mr. Chair. Thanks to Mr. Barlow for the explanation.

I'm wondering if we can get an opinion from the legislative clerk on the interpretation of this amendment. When we read CPC-1 and CPC-2 combined, it seemed like they might be having the opposite of the intended impact that Mr. Barlow articulated, and I wanted to make sure that the legislative clerk was confident that the intent of Mr. Barlow's amendment was actually reflected in the effect it would have.

[The Chair, Liberal, Kody Blois]

We can certainly ask Mr. Méla if he would like to comment or give any other further clarification. That's why he's here today—to help us out—and we'll go to him as required.

[Philippe Méla, Legislative Clerk]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you for the question. It's usually not my place to talk about the content of the bill but more about procedural matters, but in this case Mr. Barlow's intent is to have a sunset clause on his first amendment, coming on in the second amendment, so the two amendments go together.

The first amendment would have the effect of reversing back in 10 years or when the sunset clause comes into force in 10 years. That's what the intent is of the two amendments combined together, and they have to be voted on together.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

I guess by my—I'm sorry, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Kody Blois]

I'm going to go to Mr. Barlow, because he might have more of an explanation. Then we'll go back to you, of course, Mr. Turnbull.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

Sorry, Ryan; I should have maybe gone to the next amendment and included that.

That next amendment is the order in council as part of that sunset clause. At 10 years, when that sunset clause comes up, it goes through an order in council to be debated within the House at that time, or it can be repealed, and just that part of the PMB would be taken out of the pollution pricing act because new technology is available. That's why they are intertwined. You have the sunset clause, but there's also that second amendment, which is the order in council that would allow that to be repealed if the government of the day decides that the technology is there and that there is then no longer a need.

Perhaps that clarifies it a bit better.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

I kind of understand that.

What I was worried about was that the way it's worded might actually have the opposite effect. In other words, it wouldn't come into effect until 10 years from now, rather than what I think you're intending, which is for the sunset clause to be for a 10-year period and that the amendment that you are proposing essentially would allow for that exemption for 10 years. It looked to me.... Maybe I read it wrong, but I just wanted to be clear from the legislative clerk about the interpretation of subclause 2(4) in CPC-2.

In good faith here, I'm asking the question in order to make sure that you're not going to have an unintended consequence based on your amendment. It's hard for me to vote on something unless I'm clear as to the legislative clerk's interpretation.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

This legislation, the PMB, will be in place for 10 years and be reviewed at the end of that 10 years. If the technology is available, that order in council allows the government of the day to either repeal that measure or extend it if the technology is not there.

Yes, in good faith, that is our proposal.

[The Chair, Liberal, Kody Blois]

Mr. Perron, you now have the floor.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like some clarification from the legislative clerk.

The way the document was prepared and the way it was presented to us, I thought that CPC‑1 was independent of CPC‑2. I thought I heard you say that we should vote on both amendments as a whole. Since that's not how the document was put together, that causes some difficulties. Had I known, I would have prepared a series of subamendments to CPC‑1, since that's the one that's causing me problems.

It seems to me that we're removing several things. We're taking out dryers, among other things, which broadens the scope of the act. The definition of farm machinery is being repealed. It refers to buildings in general, rather than sticking to the NDP proposal we just passed. We're amending the fifth paragraph to add any prescribed fuel, rather than doing what we've always talked about, which is adding propane and natural gas to the exemptions.

So I really need some clarification on this.

[The Chair, Liberal, Kody Blois]

I'm going to go to Mr. MacGregor. Then we'll make sure that the legislative clerk has the opportunity to address some of these points.

Go ahead, Mr. MacGregor.

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

I might be repeating a lot, but this is just for the clerk to consider.

My understanding is that CPC-1 is basically reverting the text of this bill back to what is in the parent statute, what is currently written. I'm seeing a head nod there.

The sunset clause will come into effect in 10 years if no action is taken by the House or the Senate. Parliament has an ability.... The Governor in Council can propose it, but there's a role for Parliament, which I like to see here. I'll leave it at that, because you now have similar questions from all of us.