Bill C-30 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) Committee on March 28th, 2007

[Carol Buckley]

I'm sorry, I don't know at this moment whether we have regulations or plan to do regulations of that sort. But we can find that information for you.

[Marcel Lussier, Bloc, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Thank you.

[Carol Buckley]

It would certainly be within the power of the act.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

Mr. Cullen.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It sounds as though there are going to be some positive changes to this through the consultation.

To get specific on the timeline aspect, I appreciate Ms. Buckley's comments on the ability and the speed at which we can do this. I'm more curious about.... I assume her department is in ongoing conversations with industry about various regulations and standards that the government has proposed in the past or is thinking about proposing in the future.

My question is direct. Given the resources you need, and thinking back to when we were dealing with clause 42 about the conversations you're having with industry right now about some other proposed regulations, in a sense, you're not starting from a standstill. There are people on staff; there are liaisons and connections to industry. What would be your ideal timeline, keeping in mind that nothing happens without a deadline, it seems, around this place?

You've said that four years is one potential and one year is impossible. Do you have recommendations? Do we have experience where we've been able to make regulations in an urgent manner? I wouldn't want to leave it entirely to the whims of other priorities that come up. If this were given proper priority and proper resourcing, would a couple of years be sufficient to do it?

[Carol Buckley]

It's hard to tell you on the spot. We've done a plan of work for 30 regulations to cover more than 80% of the use in three important sectors. To understand what “significant” and “increasing” applies to and to determine how many more regulations that would be, and then to try to figure out a compressed timeframe.... I admit I can't do that on the spot.

It's possible we could do it in less than four years, but I wouldn't like to guarantee to this table that we could do it in two years or even three years.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

I'm not sure of the language we'd need.

I guess what I'm saying to my Liberal colleagues is that it sounds as though there's some opening for amendments. If there is some language that we as a committee can find that would make the timelines, while firm, have some flexibility within them, to put away.... I'm not sure whether there's a consideration to move this proposed subsection (3) out, but if we could find some language to get it done and have all committee members agree to it—and we all agree that the principle and the purpose of it is good—then let's find that language now, or perhaps in a small negotiation among the staff.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

Mr. Jean.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

There are two things.

I would agree with all of the members that technology is obviously our best option, and this is a low-hanging fruit that could bring some real benefits to Canada.

I agree with Mr. Bigras in relation to the consultation with other governments, but—I say in a positive light—the reality is that as soon as we add that to it, the Supreme Court, for instance in aboriginal cases, has said there are specific criteria that have to be followed, which I understand take a minimum of three to six months.

As soon as we get into the other situation where we're going to be consulting on however many products—I don't know how many—I could imagine there would be quite the amount of investigation research that would need to be done beforehand. We're going to add at least a minimum of a year to this particular schedule, which the department suggests they can't do...or they suggest a four-year period of time would be appropriate. Then we're into a five-year period of time that they would take, in essence.

I think what we should do is try to lessen it as much as possible. I've seen, in many pieces of legislation before, the words “best efforts”. Maybe we could encompass best efforts in there and a timeframe of two years. Certainly that might be an option.

What does the department think of that?

[Carol Buckley]

Best efforts in two years?

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

I'm just throwing out an option that is certainly.... I would suggest that it has to be a reasonable time period. If two is not that, then three years. Whatever the case is, the key here is that we can move forward on this low-hanging fruit, and obviously it should have been done five or six years ago, but we have to use what we have now.

What would be appropriate?

[Carol Buckley]

Let's be clear that Canada is a leader in a great number of classes right now, so it's not as though we have to hurry to play catch-up on a very large number of products. That's not true. We are the world leader in many products, and with this amendment we will, vis-à-vis that second part of it, ensure that we stay on top and ahead of North America.

But I'm still caught with taking a timeframe and the work of 30 or so people and saying the work that you could comfortably do and do well without posing any legal challenges to the government or technical challenges to Canadians, which we need four years to do, we'll try to do in two years. I just can't, as a public servant, say to you that two years is doable.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

Mr. Bigras, it is your turn.

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The more I look at this amendment, the more I see problems with it, in particular with subsection (4). It clearly states that:(4) The standards referred to in subsection (3) shall be reviewed by the Governor in Council at least once in every three years to ensure that the levels of energy consumption provided for by the standards are at least equivalent to the levels set by the most stringent standards applicable in other jurisdictions in North America.

Mr. Chairman, given that we know that the production and distribution of energy are ensured by the provinces, how could we truly enforce such as proposal?

Ms. Buckley, given Canada's energy supply structure, do you believe that it would be possible to ensure consumption levels and that the Governor in Council could take measures in this regard? Do you really believe that this is realistic, given Canada's energy supply structure?

[Carol Buckley]

The answer is relatively straightforward: the Energy Efficiency Act confers upon the federal government powers to restrict importation and shipment of products that don't meet a certain standard. There is no question that this act has been in place for seven or eight years and that this is an authority we currently have.

So there's absolutely no question about our authority. We are not trying to regulate what is in the provincial domain, but we have authority already without these amendments to regulate in the federal domain.

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

You are therefore of the belief that you have the power to do that. How could you exercise that power? How could you force a province to provide you with essential data that would allow you to ensure the levels of energy consumption of a province?

That is really what we are talking about here. You perhaps have that power, but I would like to know what means you have at your disposal to exercise that power over the provinces. I am telling you, and I continue to believe, that production, distribution and consumption fall under provincial jurisdiction. If this amendment passes, what means will you have available to you to force the provinces to respect energy consumption levels equivalent to the most stringent in North America? What legislative, regulatory, punitive or other type of tool do you have at your disposal?

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

Mr. McGuinty believes there may be a problem with the translation in proposed subsection (4), which may be leading you to some of your conclusions.

Mr. McGuinty, do you want to address that?

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Mr. Bigras, I think there is an error in the translation. In English, we are not talking about having the federal government verify, every three years, the energy consumption levels of the provinces. This is what the English text says:

“that the levels of energy consumption provided for by the standards for the products are at least equivalent to the levels set by the most stringent”.

It think there's a translation....

I believe there is a mistake in the translation.

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

If I understand correctly, the idea is to ensure the level of energy consumption, unless you are telling me that in Canada there is an East-West interconnection that the board...

Might I rather put my question to the officials?

[Carol Buckley]

I've been focusing on the English text, and it refers to the levels of energy consumption provided for by the standards. Perhaps that's missing in the French.

Let's be clear. We are exercising existing authorities to regulate standards for energy-using equipment. We are not attempting to regulate provincial production or distribution of energy. There is no question in my mind, and I think my Justice colleague here agrees with me, of any jurisdictional issue, or any way that we need to compel the provinces to do anything at all. We have the power to do what we need to do. We are asking for some amendments to broaden those powers. The provinces have their own powers and we are not infringing, although we would consult to move forward harmoniously.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

Is that clear or not?

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

It is clear, but what I am saying is that we are indirectly going about doing something that we cannot do directly. Indeed, we are dealing with energy-using products which can, indeed, come under federal jurisdiction, allowing the federal government to intervene indirectly in the area of overall energy consumption.

Let us say that the precautionary principle is what guides me in energy matters when these are being dealt with in the framework of federal legislation.

If I understood correctly, you are in favour of this amendment. Is that correct?

[Carol Buckley]

I don't think it's my job to agree or not to agree. I'm here to provide you with a technical analysis of the amendment and to discuss from my perspective problems or advantages.

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

You are saying that it is feasible. Could you at least tell us, given your resources, if this amendment is doable? My question is a simple one. In your view, is this amendment, as drafted, realistic and feasible?

[Carol Buckley]

I said the amendment is feasible except in one important regard, and that is in the first paragraph. In terms of the magnitude of regulations, it says the quantity covered by the words “significant in increasing energy use” could be implemented within one year. I don't believe it could be implemented in one year. I don't think that's technically feasible. That's my only technical comment.