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

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

I don't have it written in front of me, but if you add, “to, within three years,”....

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

Okay. I think what you're saying is, and if everybody could listen carefully:

The Governor in Council shall make best efforts to, within three years, make regulations, in collaboration and consultation with the provinces and territories

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

It's “in consultation”.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

Okay:

in consultation with the provinces and territories, establishing energy efficiency standards for

We're going to wind up reading this again once we get it down, but is that okay on this wording?

Mr. McGuinty, go ahead.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

I just have a question for Ms. Buckley. If this read, “within three years after the day in which this subsection comes into force, the Governor in Council shall make regulations” etc., can you do this?

[Carol Buckley]

I would prefer to have “best efforts”.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

To give you flexibility.

[Carol Buckley]

When we do a plan of work and seek budget and authorities to implement that plan of work, we don't generally put a lot of padding in. We have experience since 1992, my colleague has reminded me, in developing and implementing energy efficiency regulations. If we thought it took four years to do a body of work, and it's now being made more substantive by this amendment in some ways, then I don't like to say we can do it in three years. I'd say we can do it in three years with our best efforts because I can't guarantee we'll have a whole year somehow of slack time in our four-year provision. So I just can't go further than saying “best efforts in three years”.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

If it didn't work out within those three years, then ostensibly it could, technically, continue?

[Carol Buckley]

Yes.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Because “best efforts” is like an exculpatory clause; it says, I made my best efforts, but I couldn't get it done in three years given my team, my resources. You're not going to stop trying, but it could be four or five years.

[Carol Buckley]

No. We only have a budget for four years, so our intent was to do the entire plan of work that we proposed within four years.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

So if this said three years and you got the proper resourcing from the government to do the job, could you get the job done?

[Carol Buckley]

Again, I can't, without any consultation with the people who do the detailed work, see if a whole year was just a resource issue or whether part of the whole year was an issue with respect to the capacity of the Standards Association of Canada or the provinces and territories and so forth. So, I'm sorry, I repeat the same thing frequently, but I just can't be pressed to say we can do it in three years. I can't.

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

Mr. Chair, can I be recognized just for a moment to respond?

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

Yes, Mr. Jean.

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

I would suggest the “best efforts” avoids legal liability in relation to the government itself, but at the same time it forces the government and the department to move in the best efforts possible. I would suggest it's a good compromise. It shortens the timeframe. Certainly, if they've only got a budget for four years, it seems to make a lot of sense.

The key here is not to be too onerous on them. If they can't get the job done...and we've heard that not only do we have a whole bunch of new jobs that have come about as a result of the amendments, but we had a time period set before that was onerous on the department, and now we have more things to do, so it just seems to be a good compromise to try to move things along, which we all want to do. In fact, it was a Conservative amendment proposal.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

Mr. McGuinty.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Back on three. Who's on third?

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

Actually, I'm going to make an observation on three at the moment. We've talked about “The Governor in Council shall make best efforts”, etc., but we haven't said when it's starting. We've dropped that part from the beginning. Do we not need some start point, i.e. after this subsection comes into force?

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

You're right, Mr. Chair, and I was just going to address this point.

Having heard the officials from NRCan and being aware of their team and their resourcing constraints, I think there might be more certainty if we were to simply say, for example, “within four years after the day on which this subsection comes into force, the GIC shall make regs”. That gives you the timelines, it's in line with the government's original thinking, and it gives more certainty for the marketplace.

If I'm in the white goods manufacturing sector and I hear about best efforts and I'm starting to retrofit my rolling stock, if I'm looking at new standards and I'm manufacturing for Inglis or some other company that's worldwide, I want to know. Why don't we just simply move to “within four years after the date on which this subsection comes into force”? That seems to jibe with your abilities and resourcing.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

You got a good deal with four.

Is that acceptable as a friendly amendment?

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

That's acceptable; there are no comments from this side of the table yet.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

Mr. Cullen, are you good with that?

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

Yes, absolutely.