Evidence of meeting #23 for Bill C-30 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) in the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was products.
A recording is available from Parliament.
1:10 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Mr. Chair, we're both ways on this debate. Do we go back and clean up the pieces first that we did through CEPA, or do we then move on to an entirely new topic?
1:10 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Laurie Hawn
Normally when clauses are stood they're stood until the end of the bill, but that again is within the purview of the committee to change.
1:10 p.m.
NDP
1:10 p.m.
Conservative
Mark Warawa Conservative Langley, BC
Mr. Chair, could I then ask that we have a five-minute break and come back?
1:10 p.m.
Conservative
1:20 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Laurie Hawn
Let's reconvene. I will say, because of question period, there are some people here doing SO 31s. We will be breaking at ten to two, deux heures moins dix.
Mr. Cullen has a short comment.
1:20 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
This is a comment on the discussion of choices.
Maybe we can get a bit of the conversation stopped.
1:20 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
The two choices before the committee are to press ahead with some of the energy efficiency options and some of the other parts of the bill. We think there might be some saliency in making sure we clean up the CEPA amendments. I don't suspect it will take that long, and given--did you say we have 30 minutes or so left, Chair, before people have to go?
1:20 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
A little less than 30. It might be the most efficient way of doing things, to complete one and then move to the second section, but I'm open to other arguments.
1:20 p.m.
Liberal
1:20 p.m.
Conservative
1:20 p.m.
Conservative
Mark Warawa Conservative Langley, BC
Chair, if you stand down an amendment, the tradition is you deal with it at the end. We have officials, and I believe if we want to move through this quickly and deal with part 2 now, that could be dealt with very quickly. I'm of the opinion that as we go back and deal with the topics that have been stood down, that is going to take a lot more time. So to deal with it efficiently, and respecting tradition, I think we should now step to part 2.
1:20 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Laurie Hawn
Do we have general agreement on that? Okay. We'll ask the officials to make the appropriate swap.
1:25 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Laurie Hawn
Okay, let's get back in session. I want to welcome Ms. Buckley and Ms. MacKenzie to the committee.
We are on new clause 41.1. and amendment L-29.
Mr. McGuinty.
March 28th, 2007 / 1:25 p.m.
Liberal
David McGuinty Liberal Ottawa South, ON
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I would refer all members to the original draft of the Energy Efficiency Act. The version I have, 1992, chapter 36, was assented to on June 23, 1992.
The preamble of that act struck us as weak. Time has moved on. We've learned so much more, so we have written up some perhaps stronger language around energy efficiency and the efficient use of energy in all sectors of the Canadian economy. If we look at the wording in the preamble to the existing Energy Efficiency Act as drafted, it simply says, “An Act respecting the energy efficiency of energy-using products and the use of alternative energy sources”.
We'd like to replace most of that wording with simply “Whereas the Government of Canada is committed to ensuring sustained improvement”--sustained improvement--“in the efficient use of energy in all sectors of the Canadian economy”. We think that's a stronger indication of the overall thrust of the act, moving forward and improving on a consistent basis. So through Bill C-30, Mr. Chair, we are not only injecting words like “national carbon budget” and “sectoral carbon budget” and “carbon deficits”, but now we're also putting at the front end of this act much more proactive language about going forward and having Canada commit to driving up energy efficiency. It speaks to important things like eco-efficiency and so on.
So the wording is there. It's evident. I would just ask members to compare what was, what is now, and what might be, if this amendment should pass.
1:25 p.m.
Conservative
Mark Warawa Conservative Langley, BC
Thank you, Chair. We have no issues with the amendment and would accept L-29.
1:25 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Chair, I'm just grasping, as we read through this section, to try to get a sense of this, from maybe the parliamentary secretary or an official, I'm not sure which, because there are a number of amendments that we've brought into this, and I'm seeking to understand the government's intention in a lot of these pieces. As we go through, there are some general statements, but not enough that is specific.
When crafting this section, perhaps the parliamentary secretary can illuminate us, pun intended, or enlighten--thank you, Mr. Watson, that's much better—particularly around speed and process, that there are energy efficiency changes being made in manufactured products, products being imported, but we're still seeking deadlines and timelines for when. So I'd like just an overview before we get to....
This is no disrespect to the amendment being moved by Mr. McGuinty.
1:25 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Laurie Hawn
Is there any further debate?
I'll call the question on amendment L-29.
(Amendment agreed to)
(On clause 42)
