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

[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.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment]

Madam Speaker, my question for the member is in regard to the fuel efficiency or energy efficiency program being proposed by the Liberals as the job-killing carbon tax.

In the past, the NDP supported that carbon tax. Does she support a job-killing carbon tax?

I know the NDP in B.C. does not. Does her federal party support the carbon tax?

[The Acting Speaker, Denise Savoie]

The hon. member for Brome—Missisquoi on a point of order.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. That question has absolutely nothing to do with Bill S-3. I am sorry, but it has nothing to do with it.

[The Acting Speaker, Denise Savoie]

I shall be flexible, considering we are dealing with energy and energy efficiency. I am sure the hon. member for Edmonton—Strathcona will give a relevant answer.

The hon. member for Edmonton—Strathcona.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Thank you, Madam Speaker, for the intervention on my behalf. I have no problem answering the question.

From my personal perspective as the member of Parliament for Edmonton—Strathcona and for my party, we do not care what measure is taken as long as it sets the appropriate value on carbon so we actually start driving change.

This debate over cap and trade versus carbon tax has to end, and it has to end here today. Everybody worldwide has admitted that we must have the right value on carbon and we must put that in place now to drive the change as expeditiously as possible.

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

Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise today on this bill because we expect a lot from energy efficiency. It should be the norm by now. The first energy efficiency bill was introduced in 1992. Then nothing was done to improve energy efficiency for 17 years, even though the technology was changing.

Today the government has laboured mightily and given birth to a mouse. There may be headlines about energy efficiency but the results are tiny. We believe in energy efficiency and will therefore vote for the bill, but not because we think it is a major step forward that could be considered part of the government’s plan to reduce emissions by 20%. It is really puny. This is a very small bill. We will vote for it because we have nothing against mice. But is this something that will make a significant contribution to reducing greenhouse gases and our energy usage, as real energy efficiency could?

My colleague asked a question a little while ago about whether the hon. member from the NDP was opposed to using oil sands to produce fuel oil. That is not the question. If we were really serious about energy efficiency, the amount of fuel oil needed on earth and in Canada as a whole could be reduced. In that case, energy efficiency would have a major effect.

However, they are not talking here about changing our windows and insulation or making better foundations. They are not talking about changing the way heat is generated. They are talking about little things, the kitchen appliances and gadgets people have around their houses. They even talk about standby power. We agree in principle about standby power. However, that should be just one paragraph among fifty indicating where to save energy.

They say this will save 10% of the energy used in homes. As one of our colleagues just said, this applies only if people buy new equipment. It does not change the old equipment at all and will not change the situation very much. We know that homes built before 1940 can save as much as 65% of the energy they use. That is huge. It is not 10% but 65%. The amount of energy used in houses built in the 1960s and 1970s could easily be reduced by 50% to 55%. The amount of energy used by houses built in the last 10 years could easily be reduced by 40% to 45% because small improvements to prevent air exchanges have been made to these kinds of buildings. But the government talks proudly about a 10% energy reduction. That is what I call a mouse.

As I said earlier, beginning in 1992, energy efficiency improvements have been made in all areas, especially in factories, large buildings and high-rises. That is something we could do again. I am talking about buildings like those that belong to the government. They have been in power for three years, and the building next to the Confederation building still has single-glazed windows. Is that what they call energy efficiency? Honestly! All Government of Canada buildings are at about the same level: poorly renovated or not renovated at all.

The energy efficiency renovation industry creates as many jobs as the oil sands—maybe even more. Moreover, these jobs are located all over Canada, including in rural communities.

This would be an incredibly effective measure in this time of crisis, but they do not seem to get it.

I think that this bill, which makes grand claims to be about energy efficiency, is just a smokescreen. It does not really have anything to do with an action plan for a new green economy. We need an action plan for better living, an action plan that helps people waste less energy and reduces Canada's debt. Right now, our debt is huge because we use so much energy that comes from outside Canada. Even if we were to use our own energy from Alberta in eastern Canada, we would have to build pipelines, which would be very expensive.

If we reduce our electricity consumption through energy efficiency measures, our economic health will improve. They keep talking about taxes. I am not talking about taxes; I am talking about saving money. If we had more efficient cars, which we could have had for the past three years, we would save money and the planet by emitting fewer and fewer greenhouse gases, and—

[The Acting Speaker, Denise Savoie]

I am sorry to have to interrupt the hon. member. He will have an opportunity to continue his interesting comments when we resume debate.

The House resumed from May 6, 2009 consideration of the motion that Bill S-3, An Act to amend the Energy Efficiency Act, be read the third time and passed.

[The Speaker, Peter Milliken]

The last time this bill was debated in the House, the hon. member for Brome—Missisquoi had the floor and he has 13 minutes left for his remarks.

The hon. member for Brome—Missisquoi.

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

Mr. Speaker, yesterday in the first part of my remarks, I commented that the government has laboured mightily and given birth to a mouse in the form of this energy efficiency bill, Bill S-3. Even though we are in agreement with the bill and will be voting in favour of that mouse, we would have much preferred to vote for something far larger like an elephant. Yesterday I listed everything that this little bill contained and today I would like to speak about what it does not contain.

This bill contains nothing about buildings, yet Canadian buildings consume 45% of all of the energy used in this country. I will come back to that later. It contains nothing to do with transport, trucking in particular, a sector that has been long neglected but is now reawakening thanks to the introduction of hybrid and economical diesel trucks. Yet there is nothing in the bill about this. Nor any mention of the EcoLogo symbol. There should be a program to replace these vehicles with fuel efficient trucks, but we do not get the impression that the government intends to do that.

When we speak of transport, we also need to speak about reducing the number of truckers who are not using their full capacity. The federal government did a study. In a city like Montreal, trucks are on the road with only 20% of their potential load, and this represents an incredible waste of energy. There needs to be rationalization of energy efficiency in this area.

The same goes for trains. Hybrid locomotives and lighter cars are now available and there could be a replacement program, or at least an examination of energy efficiency, which would demonstrate just how far behind rail service is in the way it uses its cars on the same rails. Our archaic laws require passenger cars to be as heavy as freight cars. The situation in Europe, China and Japan is totally different. Their attitude is different. This all shows the lack of concern for energy efficiency.

The same goes for agriculture. This bill ought to encourage the change from synthetic fertilizers to traditional ones. But once again, nothing on that. Energy efficiency also means having digesters on farms to produce electricity. Nothing in the bill on that. Nothing about mandatory labelling. All motor vehicles should have ecoEnergy labels, but no; in fact, no mention of anything of consequence.

The manufacturing sector has also been left out entirely. There is no incentive for the sector to improve energy efficiency or avoid wasting energy. There are very few efficient assembly lines, and they use a lot of energy.

Street lighting would also have been a good thing to tackle in this bill. In Canada, we use some three times more electricity for night-time lighting than in Europe, and we use about twice as much as the United States, our neighbours to the south. Our systems are utterly inefficient, which means that we waste a lot of electricity. Anyone taking a walk at night will see high-intensity stadium and park lights on all night. These lights are poorly designed and light up the sky more than they do the area that needs to be lit. For example, the Mont-Mégantic Observatory, which is struggling with government funding shortfalls just now, has shown just how much electricity and energy could be saved by using more efficient lighting that directs the light downward rather than toward the sky.

So much energy could be saved by using better street lights, but the legislation does not even touch that. I do not believe that the government actually wants to change anything.

If the legislation had touched on all of these sectors, we could have made huge energy efficiency gains.

What can the government achieve by reviewing American and Mexican standards regularly? Not much. We know that energy efficiency standards in those two countries are not exactly cutting-edge.

Why not choose Europe, Germany, Sweden or Japan instead? No, the government wants to compare us to our next-door neighbours, even though almost nothing is going on there on the energy efficiency front, especially not in Mexico. The government chose the easiest targets, and the Office of Energy Efficiency will be comparing us to them every three months or every three years, as it sees fit, but that is as far as it will go.

The government will also periodically review the outcomes of the Energy Efficiency Act. Under this bill, nobody will be reviewing energy efficiency progress in Canada; rather, the government will simply check on any progress brought about by the legislation. If this bill is a mouse, well, every now and then, the government will make sure it is still alive. That is all.

All the other aspects of energy efficiency that are not affected by this bill will never be checked. We will never see whether any progress has been made in these areas or whether we have lost ground.

Reducing greenhouse gas emissions depends on energy efficiency. The government says it is going to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 20% between 2006 and 2020. In fact, as far back as 1990, the harmful effects of greenhouse gases were known and real efforts were made to reduce them. Yet if we look at the figures since 1990, we can see that greenhouse gas emissions will increase by 3% by 2020. The government talks about reducing emissions, but we will not even manage to reduce our emissions to 1990 levels. We will not even get back to those levels.

The current government clearly has no intention to save the planet, which is grappling with climate change. That is not the government's goal. Yet American presidents like Reagan who were not inclined to take steps to improve energy efficiency still managed to reduce fuel consumption in the United States by 15%. Fifteen per cent of what all cars and trucks used is a lot, and the government accomplished that simply by reducing the speed limit.

This bill could have imposed a mandatory speed control device, as this comes under federal jurisdiction. I know that the speed limit on highways comes under provincial jurisdiction, but the federal government could have required that all cars sold in Canada be equipped with a speed control device.

These devices were developed for trucks, and they work quite well. It would even have been possible to reduce the number of police officers required to watch for speeders. People would have been forced to comply with speed limits.

I have not yet talked about a very important area, and that is air conditioning in Canada. In the afternoon, we freeze in this House. The thermostat is at 15^oC. Yesterday, I checked, and the temperature at my desk was 69^oF. We use air conditioning too much, in a country that has very little need for it. In Canada, buildings using hybrid ventilation have won awards. A hybrid system uses air conditioning only during heat waves, when it is extremely hot. This is familiar technology.

The rest of the time, air ventilation either comes from a cooler area, or the air is simply circulated using fans. With fans, we can go up to 89^oF. I apologize for giving the temperature in Fahrenheit, but the engineers here always use Fahrenheit. We are right next to the United States, so there is still a tendency to use it.

Comfort is very important and we can find a way to be very comfortable.

In short, this bill aims to update the Office of Energy Efficiency regulations and standards. It is not an energy efficiency act. There is a difference between the two. The standards have been updated, but new legislation has not been created—even though it is being called the energy efficiency act—which would have made more significant changes.

Thousands of scientific articles have been written on energy efficiency and possible ways of reducing overall energy consumption. I would like to read just a few lines from an article that appeared in the Université de Sherbrooke's VECTEUR environnement. It states:

There are numerous strategies that contribute—not “would contribute”—to reducing a building's energy consumption—thereby reducing greenhouse gases—for instance, the use of energy-efficient lighting products, geothermal power, high-performance boilers, centralized control systems, improving the building envelope by insulating the walls and the roof and by installing energy-efficient windows (argon gas filled, low-E coating, low conductivity spacers), etc.

It says “etc.” So as we can see, it is not a question of not knowing how; rather it is a lack of will on the part of the government.

Energy efficiency has a significant environmental impact on climate change by reducing greenhouse gases. We are a long way from reaching our goals in order to meet the commitments we made in 1998. Action is urgently needed in terms of reviewing our building codes and reassessing how we do things in terms of energy efficiency.