Agriculture Committee on Nov. 14th, 2022

[The Chair, Liberal, Kody Blois]

I'll go to Mr. Perron first, and then I'm going to go to Mr. Barlow.

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

Mr. Chair, I'd like to make a simple comment.

I don't understand why I'm being told that CPC‑1 and CPC‑2 must be voted on at the same time, and then 10 minutes later I'm being told that once CPC‑1 is adopted, we can vote on LIB‑2, which would invalidate CPC‑2, which we would have already voted on. I realize I'm not a lawyer, but something is wrong with that. Can someone explain to me what this is all about?

On the other hand, I've come up with a quick solution. You talked about unanimous consent, and I would suggest that we get unanimous consent from the committee to remove those five little words from CPC‑2. If everyone is in agreement, we could then vote on the clauses one after the other, get it all done and be finished in 10 minutes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Kody Blois]

I'll go to Mr. Barlow, and then I'll do my best as your chair to explain somewhat how they are tied. If I don't get it right, I'm sure the legislative clerk will jump in.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

To follow up from Mr. Perron, the way I'm reading it, we have two options. Because the amendment has already been tabled—as the Conservatives have tabled that amendment—we can't just say we'll strike those five words and move on.

[Philippe Méla]

It needs unanimous consent.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Okay, it needs to be unanimous consent.

Option two is that we need unanimous consent to strike those five words, and then we can move on.

I agree with Mr. Perron. I'll ask for unanimous consent to remove those five words and hopefully we can move on. We all understand where this is going to go; let's just get there.

[The Chair, Liberal, Kody Blois]

I will go to that in a moment, if there is no other debate.

Mr. Perron, my understanding, as the clerk explained, is that the provisions of the two amendments, CPC-1 and CPC-2, are interconnected. Therefore, you run the risk that if CPC-1 is adopted but CPC-2 is not adopted down the line, then there could be real consequences.

The way in which we are studying these provisions is that the Liberal provision, if adopted, would then have consequences such that CPC-2 couldn't be adopted.

That's the procedural element here. We know what your concern is, which is in the provision of the five words in CPC-2.

Colleagues, I'll ask for any conversation on whether or not unanimous consent can be achieved.

Go ahead, Mr. Turnbull.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

In CPC-2, under proposed new subsection 2(3)—I'm speaking to Mr. MacGregor's proposed subamendment, which is removing the five words “but may not be amended”—does that solve for the fact that this CPC-2 opens up the possibility, as Ms. Taylor Roy mentioned, of this sunset clause essentially being extended?

I don't think it does. It just says that it “may not be amended”—i.e., the changes that are being made now could then be amended, right?

In essence what I'm trying to clarify is whether Mr. MacGregor's proposed subamendment, by removing those five words, negates the possibility of 10 years later this being extended once again. It doesn't deal with that consideration, as far as I can tell.

In that respect, I don't know why I would give it my consent. I have a deep concern with this being extended and extended and extended. A 10-year sunset clause should be a 10-year sunset clause. I don't feel comfortable with introducing things that can be extended over and over again for decades to come.

[The Chair, Liberal, Kody Blois]

I have Ms. Taylor Roy next.

Mr. Barlow, I know that you wanted to speak, but I have Ms. Taylor Roy, you, Mr. MacGregor and Mr. Perron.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

In response to Mr. Turnbull's comment, the part that concerned me was in CPC-2, the first paragraph, where it says that it comes into force “on the day that is the 10th anniversary of the day on which this Act comes into force, unless, before that day, their coming into force is postponed by a resolution—whose text is established under subsection (2)—passed by both Houses”. It's basically saying that this can be extended again.

I find it very hard to believe that in 10 years we're not going to have a clean-tech alternative. That's what concerns me about that particular paragraph.

[The Chair, Liberal, Kody Blois]

Go ahead, Mr. Barlow.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Mr. Turnbull and Ms. Taylor Roy, that is the whole idea of the sunset clause and the order in council. If there is the technology, this exemption ends and the price on pollution, the carbon tax, goes onto natural gas and propane. However, if the technology is not available, the government of the day, whoever that may be.... That will be debated in the House. Amendments will now be allowed, thanks to the good eyes of our colleagues. The government of the day can make changes to this legislation that could massage it into whatever the government of the day wants it to be.

That's really the whole idea of this legislation. It's to provide that exemption to correct an oversight in the previous price on pollution legislation. For the next 10 years, that will be reviewed by the government of the day and either repealed to go back to what it is right now or amended or extended.

That is kind of the idea. That's 10 years from now—I certainly hope I'm not still here—and the government of the day will have that choice.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

You'll still be here.

[A voice]

[Inaudible—Editor]

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Oh, I'll be leaving in government; don't get me wrong.

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Again, we're not trying to be tricky with this in any way, shape or form. This is all in good faith, based on what we heard in our testimony and certainly from other colleagues. If we don't have unanimous consent, let's move on and get this moving. We'll split it up, if we need to, and vote on them separately.

[The Chair, Liberal, Kody Blois]

I hope the people from Foothills were listening: Mr. Barlow does not want to be here in 10 years—

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[The Chair, Liberal, Kody Blois]

—but we don't want to wish against him in the next couple.

Go ahead, Mr. MacGregor, and then Mr. Perron.

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

Just very quickly, the way this is structured, it's actually giving Parliament more of a role in this process. You have to note also that it has to pass both Houses of Parliament. There is also the Senate.

By removing those five words, the government of the day can put forth a resolution. By deleting those five words, I think a member of the opposition could say, “Well, I'm going to actually propose an amendment to how that resolution is worded, because I don't like the way it's going.” I think we're actually giving more of a role to members of the opposition here. The fact that both Houses have to pass the same resolution—that's tough at the best of times.

Hopefully, that answers the concerns you raised.

[The Chair, Liberal, Kody Blois]

Go ahead, Monsieur Perron.

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

First of all, I want to reassure Mr. Barlow. Of all of us, I'm probably the one who doesn't want to be here in 10 years, given the nature of my party.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

No—not in opposition, let's be clear; not in opposition.

[Voices]

Oh, oh!