Evidence of meeting #36 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 vote.
A recording is available from Parliament.
3:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Kody Blois
Mr. Legislative Clerk, I think the question that I'm hearing from the folks is how that interconnected play works and why they have to be voted on together. It seems as though Monsieur Perron, particularly, had ideas that they were separate.
3:55 p.m.
Legislative Clerk
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Perron, Mr. MacGregor just explained it exactly as I would have, so I'll repeat it.
Let's take CPC‑1, which would add subsection (1.1) to the bill in order to repeal paragraph (b.1) of the definition of “eligible farming machinery” in section 3 of the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act.
If this amendment were adopted as written, it would mean that paragraph (b.1) of section 3 of the act would immediately cease to exist. However, CPC‑2 proposes that subsection (1.1) come into force on the 10th anniversary of the coming into force of the bill, which means that this provision wouldn't come into force immediately, but rather in 10 years, at which time it would revert to the state of the legislation today unless Parliament intervenes in the interim to renew or amend this provision.
This also applies to the other parts of the bill that are affected.
3:55 p.m.
Bloc
Yves Perron Bloc Berthier—Maskinongé, QC
What I understand is that by adopting subsection (1.1) proposed in CPC‑1, the scope of the bill would be expanded exponentially. That's kind of a shame because that's not what we talked about during the study. Instead, we talked about making reasonable compromises with agricultural producers, who need their production costs not to be increased in the short term because it wouldn't do any good if there is no alternative.
We've always talked about keeping a price on pollution. Maybe I'm being emotional, but I'm pretty upset about it.
3:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Kody Blois
I'll go to Mr. Barlow, and then I see Mr. MacGregor, so we can try to clarify what the intent here is.
3:55 p.m.
Conservative
John Barlow Conservative Foothills, AB
I want to assure my colleague there's no intent. This amendment is in good faith and comes from what we heard from our witnesses at testimony. We are in no way trying to expand the breadth of Mr. Lobb's PMB.
I know it looked complicated when we were working with the legislative team to craft this amendment. This is 100% meant to just be adding the sunset clause to the PMB. We heard about this in testimony. Certainly in conversations and in listening to the questions from my colleagues during the testimony, we heard this would be much more palatable with a sunset clause involved.
I know my colleagues had some questions around the part about this being debated in the House, but no amendments. The reason we did that was that we basically wanted to do something that was already done and follow a precedent that was set. We basically modelled this after Bill C-30, the Fair Rail for Grain Farmers Act. We wanted to make sure this wasn't something new, that we were implementing something we know fits the legislative framework.
I want to assure my colleague that in no way are we looking at this as an expansion in any way. Certainly we're trying to do this in good faith. If there are some concerns, the government can address that in the regulations, but to Mr. Perron, in no way was that the intention of what we were trying to do. If that is how he's interpreting it, I don't want to say we're interpreting this incorrectly—legalese is what it is, I guess—but that is certainly not the intention.
4 p.m.
NDP
Alistair MacGregor NDP Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC
I was a bit confused by the comment about this amendment broadening the bill. If CPC-1 passes, along with CPC-2, we're essentially going back to the way the act is currently written. I don't see how that's going to be broadening it.
I know it's a confusing way. It took me a few times to read through it. It's more complex than what I had proposed for Bill C-206 in the previous Parliament, but I'm confident—and I think the legislative clerk has nodded a few times—that if these two are passed, we're essentially going to revert to how the statute is currently written.
4 p.m.
Bloc
Yves Perron Bloc Berthier—Maskinongé, QC
It's a good thing I misunderstood at first.
Can the legislative clerk confirm one last time that if amendments CPC‑1 and CPC‑2 are adopted and Bill C‑234 is passed, it will mean that in 10 years, we'll revert to the exact wording we're amending today through Bill C‑234, without expanding its scope?
4 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Kody Blois
Are there any further debates, conversations, questions or clarifications?
Go ahead, Mr. MacGregor.
4 p.m.
NDP
Alistair MacGregor NDP Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC
I guess we need to deal with amendment CPC-1 in turn before we go to amendment CPC-2. My comment is on amendment CPC-2, so I'll save that.
4 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Kody Blois
The only other question, just for clarity, is that amendment LIB-2, Mr. Turnbull's proposal, does talk about what I think you would refer to, Mr. Turnbull, as a sunset clause of eight years.
My role is to be independent here, but I would ask the clerk if that is something we have to discuss now. If we were to move on amendments CPC-1 and CPC-2, that would have a consequential impact on Mr. Turnbull's proposed LIB-2 amendment. Is that correct?
4 p.m.
Legislative Clerk
Yes. If amendment CPC-1 is adopted, amendment LIB-2 cannot be moved because it covers the same thing a bit differently.
4 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Kody Blois
Mr. Turnbull, I see your hand.
Colleagues, for your benefit, obviously because that has consequence, I'll leave the floor open on amendments CPC-1, CPC-2 and LIB-2, because obviously there is an interconnected web there. Any discussion can happen accordingly.
4 p.m.
Liberal
Ryan Turnbull Liberal Whitby, ON
Can the clerk clarify as well whether the particular amendments that we are considering, CPC-1 and CPC-2, would have the effect of expanding the eligible fuels beyond just propane? It seems to me that it may broaden that slightly.
Could you speak to that, clerk, if possible?
4 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Kody Blois
I'll go to Mr. Barlow quickly for his intent, and then I'll go for our independent opinion as well.
4 p.m.
Conservative
John Barlow Conservative Foothills, AB
Just to answer Mr. Turnbull, the other fuels are already exempt under the price and pollution act in the previous bill. All this is doing is adding propane and natural gas to those exemptions.
4 p.m.
Legislative Clerk
The two amendments provide for a sunset clause. There is no expansion provided anywhere.
4 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Kody Blois
Is there any further conversation on any of the elements?
Mr. MacGregor, I know you wanted to speak to CPC-2, as does Ms. Taylor Roy, perhaps.
We'll have Mr. MacGregor, Mr. Perron and Ms. Taylor Roy, and we'll go from there.
4 p.m.
NDP
Alistair MacGregor NDP Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC
Thank you, Chair.
I think Mr. Perron raised this point, and I know that Mr. Barlow modelled this after an existing statute. I think it is proposed subclause 2(3) that says that the motion for the adoption of the resolution may be debated but may not be amended. Maybe I'll test the room as to whether we want to allow amendments to happen. Do we want to handcuff future parliamentarians in this regard?
It's along the lines of what Mr. Perron and Mr. Barlow have already discussed. I'm just opening that up for colleagues' consideration.
4:05 p.m.
Bloc
Yves Perron Bloc Berthier—Maskinongé, QC
I want to raise the same point as Mr. MacGregor, which we discussed earlier. According to subsection (3) of CPC‑2, “[a] motion for the adoption of the resolution may be debated in both Houses of Parliament but may not be amended”. That poses a problem for me.
Mr. Legislative Clerk, correct me if I'm wrong. If it's possible to move a subamendment, I move to delete “may not be amended” because I have a great deal of difficulty with tying the hands of the members who will be here in 10 years. I don't like my hands being tied or being muzzled today, so I don't want to do it to someone 10 years from now.
4:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Kody Blois
Mr. Perron, just so we're clear, you are moving a subamendment? That's just for clarity.
I see Mr. MacGregor's hand next, and Mr. Barlow.
I'm going to just take one moment to refer to my legislative clerk here. Just one second.
You can tell the fine folks what you just told me.
4:05 p.m.
Legislative Clerk
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'm going to do it in English, and I will redo it in French afterwards.
CPC-1 and CPC-2 go together. Proposing an amendment to CPC-2 at this time is not possible. CPC-2 is open for discussion, but it's not open to be voted on. The problem is if you want to separate CPC-1 and CPC-2, then you may risk running into trouble.
The trouble is you may adopt CPC-1, which removes basically the effects of what's in the bill. Then you go to CPC-2, and the effect would be to postpone that for 10 years. If you don't adopt it because subamendments were made and at the end of the day parliamentarians don't like the end result and don't adopt CPC-2, then you end up with an empty bill.
It's a situation that's a bit awkward, but it's a situation that indeed exists. I just wanted to point out the risk of separating the two of them.
4:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Kody Blois
Mr. Perron, you've certainly signalled your intent when we get to that point. Do you have anything further to say before I go to Mr. MacGregor?