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.
4:25 p.m.
Bloc
Yves Perron Bloc Berthier—Maskinongé, QC
All joking aside, I support Mr. Barlow's suggestion that we vote on each clause separately, one after the other. That way, we can make some amendments and it will be resolved.
4:25 p.m.
Liberal
Ryan Turnbull Liberal Whitby, ON
I have just a quick point in response to Mr. Barlow's earlier comments.
For me, in listening to all the testimony.... We heard that for grain drying, there is technology; it's just not commercially adopted at this point. I have done research myself and have found many examples of grain-drying technology that's out there and that we just haven't adopted in Canada yet.
Again, a sunset clause for this is important to me personally. I would prefer it to be a shorter time frame, to be honest. The one that's proposed here is 10 years, but once you start talking about the potential for extending it, that's when all of the alarm bells go off in my mind. I just don't see it.
To Mr. MacGregor's point, I totally get that Parliament in the future, many years from now, can have their say. That's fine. I just think we seem to be opening this up to continual extension and deferral.
4:25 p.m.
Liberal
Leah Taylor Roy Liberal Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON
Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Barlow, for explaining your position on this. I think we agree that within 10 years there should be clean tech that could address this. If we all agree on that, why not just leave it in force on the tenth anniversary of the day when it comes into force? We know new legislation could be introduced 10 years from now if need be, if there were no clean tech, which would be a surprise to us all. There could be new legislation introduced. What I don't like is that we're setting it up to put in doubt that something is going to be there, and we're saying that this is going to go longer.
I don't think it's necessary. Your explanation is that it would be used only if there were no clean tech, but we all seem to agree, given the testimony, that there will be clean tech, and we know there's a solution if there isn't, which is that new legislation will just be introduced. I'd rather do this with great faith in our clean-tech industry and our agriculture industry that we're going to solve this problem.
Just to add to that, I actually think it will be done before 10 years, in particular for barn heating, and for grain drying too, so I have an issue with that. More than that, allowing it to be extended means there is the assumption that it's not going to be available, and there's no provision to actually advance it or to have the sunset time reduced if, in fact, the clean tech does come into force before the 10 years.
4:25 p.m.
Conservative
John Barlow Conservative Foothills, AB
It's clear we don't have unanimous consent, Mr. Chair, for that small change. I would move a motion that we split amendments CPC-1 and CPC-2 and vote on them separately.
4:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Kody Blois
Mr. Legislative Clerk, I just want to make sure that's within your understanding of what is possible.
4:25 p.m.
Legislative Clerk
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
There's no need for a motion. Amendment CPC-1 is already on the table.
4:30 p.m.
Conservative
John Barlow Conservative Foothills, AB
With that in mind, Mr. Chair, I would call the vote on amendment CPC-1.
4:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Kody Blois
Is there any further discussion, colleagues?
I see Mr. Turnbull's hand.
4:30 p.m.
Liberal
Ryan Turnbull Liberal Whitby, ON
Amendment CPC-1, as a stand-alone, obviously has the impact you mentioned, which is, I think, very clear.
Then, if we vote on amendment CPC-1, we will still consider amendment LIB-2. Is that correct?
4:30 p.m.
Some hon. members
Agreed.
4:30 p.m.
The Clerk
I spoke too quickly. It would still be possible to consider amendment LIB-2, but only the “(b)” part, because the “(a)” part would already be adopted through amendment CPC-1. They are identical. You would have to move it without the “(a)” part.
4:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Kody Blois
Just so you're sure, Mr. Turnbull, obviously, if amendment CPC-1 passes, the language at the start of your amendment is mirrored. You would move an amended piece, which is on the sunset clause at eight years.
Seeing no further hands or debate or discussion, I'm going to move.... I was going to move to a vote, but let me just talk to my legislative clerk friend.
Colleagues, I'll ask the clerk for a recorded vote.
(Amendment agreed to: yeas 6; nays 5 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Colleagues, we're now moving to amendment LIB-2.
First, I'm going to turn it over to the legislative clerk to talk about the dynamics and the interplay here, and then, Mr. Turnbull, I'll turn it over to you to introduce the rationale and the reason this amendment makes sense to your mind.
It's over to you, Mr. Clerk.
4:30 p.m.
Legislative Clerk
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
First, you would need to move your amendment without paragraph (a), because that was just adopted.
On paragraph (b), the sunset clause that is provided here is only for proposed subsection 1(2.1). It would provide for an eight-year sunset clause.
Turning over to CPC-2, there is already a provision for a sunset clause for proposed subsection 1(2.1), for 10 years. Your amendment, if it were to be adopted, would negate the possibility of having that subsection 1(2.1) for 10 years. It would be eight years. The others would be able to be amended any which way—eight years, 10 years.
I just wanted to point that out.
4:35 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Kody Blois
For my clarity as the chair, and perhaps for all members, my understanding is that if Mr. Turnbull's amendment is proposed, it wouldn't completely negate CPC-2; it would just negate the aspect around proposed subsection 1(2.1) of what is being proposed and what comes next.
4:35 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Kody Blois
It wouldn't completely strike the ability to consider CPC-2; it would change proposed subsection 1(2.1) from 10 years to eight years.
4:35 p.m.
Liberal
Ryan Turnbull Liberal Whitby, ON
I do want to move LIB-2 without paragraph (a).
Do I need to read it into the record? You all have it, so it should be fine.
Let me give you the rationale.
The original bill, Bill C-206, which Bill C-234 is based on, recommended a 10-year exemption. It's already been two years. It would follow very logically that another eight years is rational.
Certainly we've heard some testimony that the technology needs to adopted more quickly. I think the government can help with that. An eight-year timeline seems to me to be consistent with a lot of the testimony we've heard. There were witnesses who said that it's a moving target. They weren't sure whether a longer or shorter period was needed. We did hear testimony on that. I don't have all the testimony in front of me right now, but if one wished, I could look it up. However, I recollect pretty clearly that there were some different timelines given, based on different witnesses and their expert advice.
I'll leave it at that. I think eight years is better than 10 for those reasons.