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.
Conservative
Director General, Office of Energy Efficiency, Department of Natural Resources
We do a careful analysis with the aid of the Department of Justice of all such trade-related issues. We would know going into developing any amendments, and we know from having implemented the Energy Efficiency Act these many years, that we have no issues on that score. In other words, it doesn't come up and surprise us that we introduce a difficulty with NAFTA and so forth. There are very real reasons behind our regulating for energy efficiency, and we don't experience challenges.
Brenda, did you want to add?
Brenda MacKenzie Legal Counsel, Department of Justice
We are talking about clause 43, which isn't a regulation-making power. It does not alter the requirements on the import of products from the United States.
NDP
Legal Counsel, Department of Justice
It's only the underlying part.
If we turn back to it, the existing act actually prevents the stockpiling of inferior products in a province. Right now as it reads, it says, just as it does here:
No dealer shall, for the purpose of sale or lease, ship an energy-using product from the province in which it was manufactured to another province
This bill simply says “from one province to another province”.
Director General, Office of Energy Efficiency, Department of Natural Resources
There's currently a loophole in the Energy Efficiency Act that allows an organization to import a piece of equipment and to then ship it to another province without meeting the standard.
Director General, Office of Energy Efficiency, Department of Natural Resources
Well, the Government of Canada, in the current Energy Efficiency Act, has regulatory power over the production and shipment or the importation and sale. We don't have power over the production and sale within a province; that's a provincial jurisdiction.
So within the way our current authorities reside there is an opportunity, as Brenda MacKenzie has said, for a company to import a product and to ship it to another province and not meet a standard. We're simply trying to close that loophole and not allow any federal-jurisdiction-related shipments to contravene the Energy Efficiency Act.
We're not trying to interfere with provincial jurisdiction, which is producing and selling within a province; that's not our jurisdiction.
I'm sorry. It's complicated.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
—but I still am quite.... Well, perhaps the parliamentary secretary knows the answers to some of these questions.
If this loophole existed, first of all, can he...?
Oh, he has his hand in the air, so let's hear what he has to say.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
Certainly. I've responded a couple of times on issues similar to this. I know that Justice Canada does the best job it possibly can. Anybody can sue anybody for any reason, whether it's substantiated or not, or whether there are loopholes. Justice Canada has officials and lawyers who go through these documents continuously to try to ensure they close as many as possible, because nobody wants to be sued.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Perhaps he hasn't been following my train of questioning. What has been raised is the notion of this stockpiling, which has nothing to do with my original assertion about NAFTA, and the department officials are nodding.
The question is--and this is important, and I want to understand it--is it the case right now that Ontario can import a certain number of products that are below national standards? No. They can manufacture products that are below and then ship them interprovincially, thereby avoiding the national standard. No?
Legal Counsel, Department of Justice
There are two questions here.
First of all, there are no NAFTA implications--
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Thank you. I'm comfortable with that; I appreciate the parliamentary secretary's comments.
Legal Counsel, Department of Justice
As the unamended act reads now, there are two points at which a product is caught. It is caught at the point that it is imported into Canada, and that has not changed. It is also caught only for a product that is, let's say, for example, manufactured in Ontario at the point it crosses a provincial boundary. That's in the existing act.
The amendment merely says that at any point that a product crosses a boundary that the federal government is able to regulate, that product must be compliant--that is, no substandard products can be shipped between provinces or imported into Canada. This does not have NAFTA implications, basically because it imposes no stricter requirements on, say, an American manufacturer than on an Ontario manufacturer. There would be no NAFTA implications.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Laurie Hawn
Is there any further debate on clause 43? I'll call the question.
(Clause 43 agreed to)
(On clause 44)
Conservative
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
I have a small question. In this proposed section it says, “A dealer is not required to provide prescribed information in respect of the energy efficiency”. For clarification, why are these exemptions placed into it? If we want to have the greatest amount of information about an energy efficient product provided to the government prior to importation or manufacture, why allow these exemptions? It's referring to proposed subsection 5(1). Is it self-referential? Does it go back to its own...?
Director General, Office of Energy Efficiency, Department of Natural Resources
I believe it goes on to say that it's if “the information has previously been provided”.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
That is the only exemption we're making available--otherwise, it's all products?