Bill S-3 (Historical)

An Act to amend the Energy Efficiency Act

This enactment amends the Energy Efficiency Act to
(a) clarify that classes of energy-using products may be established based on their common energy-consuming characteristics, the intended use of the products or the conditions under which the products are normally used;
(b) require that all interprovincial shipments of energy-using products meet the requirements of that Act;
(c) require dealers to provide the Minister of Natural Resources with prescribed information respecting the shipment or importation of energy-using products;
(d) provide for the authority to prescribe as energy-using products manufactured products, or classes of manufactured products, that affect or control energy consumption;
(e) broaden the scope of the labelling provisions; and
(f) broaden the scope of the Minister’s report.

Energy Efficiency Act

[David Anderson, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources and for the Canadian Wheat Board]

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the member opposite if she would clear up a bit of confusion between her presentation and the position of one of her colleagues.

Her colleague had said that this bill only affected gadgets, and he was fairly emphatic about that, but she talked at the beginning of her speech about the possible extensive application of this bill.

I wonder if she could address the inconsistencies in those two positions and talk about how she feels that this bill will actually be applied and what kinds of things it will actually affect.

[Paule Brunelle, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I do not think that what my colleague said is any different from what I said. There is no doubt that this is a very technical bill designed to set energy standards for all sorts of products. As I indicated in my presentation, in terms of government action to effect greenhouse gas reductions, to set building standards for example—we know that 47% of the energy is used by buildings, but there is no real effort to address the problem—there is no real action with respect to putting forward any major environmental plan. That is what my colleague condemned, and I think he was right.

[John Weston, Conservative, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Trois-Rivières for her speech.

I am a rookie here and there are two things that puzzle me. Perhaps it is because I am a new member in this House. I have heard that the measures had to be efficient and fair. But if this is efficient and fair for the country as a whole, I am struck by the fact that it does not satisfy the member opposite. I have heard a number of times that efficient and fair measures are required for Quebec, but it seems to me that she is ignoring the rest of the country. That is my first question.

My second question is this. She said that she supports Kyoto. We know, however, that Eddie Goldenberg and other Liberals have made it clear that they were not planning to implement Kyoto, nor did they have the ability to do so. Those are my two questions.

[Paule Brunelle, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague across the way for his question and I commend him on the quality of his French.

I do find this fight against greenhouse gas unfair. For the Bloc Québécois, it is clear that what is needed in terms of greenhouse gas reduction is not intensity targets, but absolute targets to create a real carbon market.

Take for example the Kruger paper manufacturing company, in my riding of Trois-Rivières, which has made huge efforts to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by more than 30%. The efforts made by such companies since 1990 have not been recognized. Had they been recognized, these companies could have obtained carbon credits as part of a true carbon exchange.

This would have been financially attractive for the companies and would have done a lot for the forestry industry, which has been going through tough times in recent years. That is why I said that, Quebec being ahead of the curve in terms of greenhouse gas reduction, it was unfair to Quebec not to use absolute targets.

[Christian Ouellet, Bloc, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my hon. colleague on her very clear presentation on Bill S-3. She clearly stated the position of the Bloc Québécois and Quebec.

Does she think that Bill S-3 will really make a difference with respect to greenhouse gas emissions, or rather that it does not take into account the real energy savings that could have been made possible in our world?

The member also mentioned that the manufacturing industry in her riding was already making efforts that are not being recognized.

While we support the bill—let me emphasize that—does the member think that it is a major piece of legislation with respect to greenhouse gas reduction?

[Paule Brunelle, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

It is obvious that we are not dealing with a major bill to reduce greenhouse gases. However, we cannot oppose virtue, and consumers will receive more information on the energy efficiency of many products and we find that positive. That is why we support the bill.

On the other hand, if the government thinks it can avoid having a real green plan because it introduced Bill S-3, it is mistaken and we will be there to remind it at every turn.

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Madam Speaker, I actually want to talk about another aspect of the bill that we have not really touched on today. One of the things that this government is famous for is its commitment to accountability and that started right from the very first bill that we introduced in the first Parliament when our government came to power.

There are a couple of sections in the bill that deal with accountability and I would like the member's opinion. One of them reads:

Once every three years...the Minister shall demonstrate the extent to which the energy efficiency standards prescribed under this Act are as stringent as comparable standards established--

There are a number of jurisdictions listed such as provinces, the United States, Mexico and others. There is a second accountability provision as well that reads:

Within four years after the day on which this section comes into force, the Minister shall...demonstrate the extent to which energy efficiency standards have been prescribed under this Act for all energy-using products--

I wonder if the member is satisfied with the energy reporting requirements in the bill. She seemed to be at committee, but I would like her to talk about that a little.

[Paule Brunelle, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank the parliamentary secretary for his question.

As I said in my speech, I think it is wise to have the minister report primarily to the House of Commons, in what he calls accountability. I think that that is an improvement provided by the bill. It is particularly important because in many areas, technological changes are so rapid that it is crucial to remain up to date.

Since the act had not been reviewed since 1992, we are correcting a major oversight. I think that the requirement to table reports in the House of Commons will guarantee updates. I remain convinced that, unfortunately, our acts often lag behind reality but we will be in a position to make adjustments according to the evolution of things.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am rising in support of the bill. It is commendable that the government has come forward with at least part of the provisions, as one of the previous members mentioned, which were included in the much more broader-based clean energy and climate change act.

It is regrettable that the government has decided, as some of the other members have mentioned, to cherry-pick measures, when in fact we need the full sweep to come forward and expeditiously to attack not only the issue of climate change but the issue of air pollution, which the government itself several years ago identified as a serious problem and promised to come forward with a package to address it.

So yes, we need to be coming forward with measures to improve the energy efficiency of appliances that are used by householders, but it is also incumbent upon the House to recognize that the largest user of energy in this country is not the householder. It is industry.

If we are actually going to get serious about tackling climate change and air pollution in a timely fashion, which has not happened in the last 15 years, we have to move forward more expeditiously with larger measures.

Personally, I find it very disappointing that the government has decided to move forward in such a narrow fashion. We had been informed over and over again by the Minister of the Environment that he is working in a bilateral dialogue with the United States of America, moving forward on energy security and climate change measures. Yet, day after day we see measures, binding laws, tabled in the United States going much further and much faster than in this country. It leaves me very puzzled.

The one thing that really troubles me is the way that we are making law and policy today in Canada. Back in the mid-1980s, when we first came forward with one of the major environmental statutes in this country's history, the first Canadian Environmental Protection Act, the government showed leadership. That was a Conservative government under Prime Minister Mulroney. It showed leadership and actually provide a white paper on exactly what that federal environmental statute would say and consulted extensively with industry, the public, municipalities and provincial governments.

Now we have moved into a mode where we simply come forward with measures that catch people off guard, or put in a reactive mode. This is not the way that I would prefer that we develop law and policy at the federal level.

It is for this very reason that I ran for office. I have undertaken with my constituents that I will try to enter into a constructive discourse with the government of the day on moving forward on these important agendas.

So yes, I applaud the government for moving forward with essentially a bill that came from the Senate and I look forward to the government actually tabling measures itself.

We have been promised that we would get new air pollution measures, particularly ones for the big industrial sectors, the very sources that are polluting the air, for example, the coal-fired industry. The Minister of the Environment mentioned to us last week that he is planning to come down heavy on the coal-fired industry in Canada.

I have to ask the government this. By what power? The main power that the federal government has to actually make our electricity cleaner in this country is environmental law. Therefore, I ask the government, where are those long promised laws to reduce and control pollution from the main dirty energy sources and from the energy guzzlers?

The tar sands are another example that consume vast amounts of our resources of clean gas that could be used to heat our homes. Where are the measures that were long promised to come forward?

I am presuming that in the United States-Canada dialogue that has been ongoing for some months, the public and Canada's energy sector so far as I am aware have been excluded. It is just like the security and prosperity agenda where the public was excluded. Let us open up this dialogue with the United States. We should not have to go to access to information, or go to our own federal counterpart and American counterparts to find out about their innovations.

The United States has brought forward and tabled a discussion draft of its law so that the public, industry, municipalities, states and so forth that are impacted have time well in advance to provide input and make sure that the law makes sense.

One of the critical laws that was tabled is the American clean energy and security act of 2009, a very ambitious and comprehensive reform for U.S. climate and energy policy. That law, which I would presume the Minister of the Environment and the Minister of Natural Resources are well briefed on, has specific provisions, binding laws, which establish energy efficiency resource standards and impose energy efficiency requirements on electricity distributors that must reduce by 2020 15% of their energy use.

These are the kinds of measures that I would have anticipated the government would have come forward with. We have already seen our European trade partners moving forward with these kinds of measures. We have seen that the Americans have already tabled provisions similar to the provisions that we are debating today. Yes, they are moving toward making more appliances energy efficient but with a much longer, more comprehensive list of appliances. Why are we doing this in such a limited way?

As I mentioned in my previous question, I am wondering why we are not moving forward more expeditiously with a national building code. It is good that the government has decided to put some limited funds into moving forward the retrofit program. It is very sad that the government has not at least, as has the United States, committed to retrofit all of its own buildings. Information was provided to me by the government about a month ago that out of the more than 20,000 buildings the government has control over, only 10 of those buildings are in the process of being retrofitted.

Yes, maybe it is laudable that we are doing this one small measure, but why are we nickel-and-diming improvement in energy efficiency? Why are we nickel-and-diming the protection of Canadians' health and environment? Why is the government not bringing forward a comprehensive package, long awaited, to address air pollution?

There has been a round table going on in Canada for the last two years that was initiated by the energy sector and environmental organizations, not the government, that were desperate to move forward co-operatively on an agenda to actually clean up our industry and make it more efficient and cleaner running. To this day, that report sits gathering dust. There has been no action by the government.

Let us bring forward that initiative which the energy sector and public interests groups have agreed on. Let us bring it forward in binding legislation before the House. I welcome the opportunity to support that initiative. I welcome the opportunity to support our clean energy sector in Canada.

We have a government that is bringing forward this minuscule measure, when it has cut entirely out of its budget any support to the renewable energy sector. At the same time, in Europe and the United States there is a massive infusion of dollars in support so that they are becoming competitive. We are now learning that European investors are going to the United States and investing in its renewable energy sector while ours is languishing.

This is another sector that could help us out when we are losing jobs from the fossil fuel industry that is shutting down in my own province because of the crashing economy, when in fact we could have another sector move in that would make us more energy efficient, provide cleaner energy, and help us move forward and show leadership worldwide.

Yes, I support this bill, but I am very saddened that it is such a small measure. I encourage the government from the depth of my heart to please listen to what the citizens of Canada are saying. Poll after poll is saying that Canadians desperately want their governments to support initiatives, provide incentives and move forward, so that they can access to cleaner electricity and energy. We want to do our part in addressing climate change and making sure that our children and grandchildren are going to have a healthier future, and not have to rely on the fossil fuel industry.

[Christian Ouellet, Bloc, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Madam Speaker, I know the hon. member for Edmonton—Strathcona quite well, because we work together in committee. I like her attitude regarding energy in general and I fully appreciate the comments she just made.

I have a question for her. Earlier, we put a question to the parliamentary secretary, which he could not answer, as to how this bill would fit into his plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 20% by 2020 without putting numbers on energy savings or greenhouse gas emission reductions.

How can he propose such a bill when the Conservatives refuse to study Bill C-311, an NDP bill, as long as that bill's proponents have not presented cost estimates?

Could the NDP member tell me what is her interpretation of the government's different attitude from one bill to the next?

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, I, too, believe that in this House we should be consistent in how we deal with all proposals that come forward, regardless which member of Parliament raises them, regardless which side of the House they are on.

One of the things that troubles me is there seems to be a denial of the value of science on the other side of the House and a denial of the fact that the world is moving at a rapid pace towards cleaner technologies. There seems to be a failure of appreciation of the fact that the world is embracing cleaner technologies. It is very important that there is equal effort in calculating not only the cost of moving forward with these cleaner technologies, but what the cost would be if we do not act expeditiously. That is what Sir Nicholas Stern is telling us very clearly.

[David Anderson, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources and for the Canadian Wheat Board]

Madam Speaker, I think we and the opposition need to recognize and acknowledge that this is going to have a significant impact on emissions. The 1992 act regulated products. This goes much further than that. It would allow us to put products into classes so that we can regulate them as groups, not individually.

There are a number of other amendments in there. I read one out earlier that would give the government broad authority to regulate basically any product that uses, affects or controls energy consumption.

Certainly, as I mentioned earlier, Canadians are the ones who are going to determine the true impact of this bill. As they make their decisions about the products they purchase, that is going to have an impact on how much this affects our environment in a positive way.

However, I want the member's opinion. Does she not believe, and I think the NDP does because it is supporting the bill, that this would have a significant impact on emissions and on the environment across the country?

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, of course we think there is value in the bill or we would not be voting in favour of it. That is not to say that we agree that it will have a significant effect.

Obviously it is important for everybody to contribute to the reduction of greenhouse gases and to cleaner air. However, the government has the power to move forward on those sources that are the major causes of the problem in climate change and in air pollution, and it continues to stall on bringing forward the regulations to put the binding standards on the industrial sector and setting the binding targets. The energy sector itself is begging the government to come forward so that it can know where it is at and so that it can enter the cap and trade system.

Yes, they are laudable. I am glad they are being passed, and I look forward to actual enforcement of the bill. However, what is more important is that we move forward an entire plan. Let us bring forward a comprehensive bill, as they are doing in the United States. Let us learn from those dialogues if we are involved in them. Let us open up the dialogue so that we can all know what is being discussed and can all learn from those lessons.

I have benefited from discussions with American scientists and American lawmakers. I think it is incumbent upon this House to be sharing those dialogues widely with everybody in Canada so that we can know what measures are possible, so that we can expect that our government will move forward and adopt those as well.

[Leon Benoit, Conservative, Vegreville—Wainwright, AB]

Madam Speaker, I listened to the member give her presentation. She made some comments on the Alberta oil sands. Those comments were very negative towards the oil sands.

I do not think she has recognized the really significant improvement in the environmental record of the companies involved in the oil sands, the significant restoration that has already been done on some of the land that has been mined in the past.

Clearly the member either does not recognize or is not particularly concerned about the fact that in her constituency live thousands of workers who depend on the oil sands for their jobs.

She cannot have it both ways. Either she wants the oil sands to continue to develop and therefore for those constituents of hers to continue to have their jobs, or she wants the oil sands to be stopped and is willing to see those jobs lost.

It cannot be both ways. Progress in the oil sands cannot be stopped while still maintaining jobs. It simply does not work.

I wonder how the member responds to her constituents whose livelihoods depend upon development in the oil sands, and as I have said, development that has become more and more environmentally friendly as time goes on?

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, I welcome the question, although it does not seem to have relevance to what I said. Today we are speaking about energy efficiency, not about reclamation. Truth be told, in fact, a very minuscule percentage of the oil sands or mine lands have been certified as reclaimed. It is an ongoing problem.

It is precisely because of the downturn in the oil sands that I am speaking so vociferously in favour of the government finally taking action to provide other employment opportunities in my province.

There has been 100% reliance on the oil sands filling the coffers of the federal government. The workers of Alberta deserve better attention and protection for sustainability of their employment. If we could have had a genuine major retrofit program supported by the federal government and a major program and a budget to support the development of the renewable energy sector, there could be jobs to fall back on.

The government dropped the ball. They put all the money into fossil fuels and yanked all the money out of all the alternative job creation prospects. So shame on the government.

I am the one who is standing up. The majority of people in Alberta have been asking for a pacing of the tar sands. I have never in this House said that I am opposed to the tar sands. I stand firm on the position that the tar sands should proceed within the full ambit and enforcement of strong federal and provincial environmental laws. That is simply what the people of Alberta are asking for. That is what the first nations who are impacted downstream and downwind are asking for. It is the responsibility of the government to stand up, particularly for first nations people.

Absolutely, that is why I am taking the position I am. We need to make sure that, like the United States, Europe and the Asian countries, we are moving towards a sustainable economy, which, as the International Energy Agency has said, is fossil fuel-based, but it is time to move forward with a new green energy economy.