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

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

Okay.

Let me read what I hope is the final version of proposed subsection 20(3). It would say:

Within four years after the day on which this subsection comes into force, the Governor in Council shall make regulations in consultation with the provinces and territories, establishing energy efficiency standards

We also have an amendment for proposed subsection 20(4). It is proposed as a friendly amendment.

En français:

(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 for all energy-using products 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.

[John Godfrey, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

Do the English and the French line up well enough on that?

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

I was hearing in my ear exactly what was said in French, more or less.

[John Godfrey, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

Okay. We're happy with that. We view that as a very friendly amendment.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

Okay.

Are we prepared for the question?

(Amendment agreed to)

(Clause 46 as amended agreed to)

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

We have a new clause. It is clause 46.1. Amendment NDP-31 refers to it.

Before I call on Mr. Dewar to address it, I just want to say that I do have a concern with the amendment about establishing a new program. It may also require a royal recommendation, but I'd like the member to address this, and I'll hear from others before making a ruling.

Go ahead, Mr. Dewar.

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

May I ask for some clarification, Mr. Chair?

The clause on which Mr. Dewar is subbing for me is clause 46.1. It is with respect to lighting; I think you're speaking to the low-income retrofit.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

We have NDP-31, page 56, on our schedule. Is that not what you're...?

Are you talking about NDP-31.1?

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

Can we just have one minute, Mr. Chair?

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

Yes. We will suspend for one minute.

We're back together again.

Mr. Cullen, I'll ask you to go ahead on the concern I've already raised.

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

Thank you, Chair. The concern is well heard.

What this amendment is directed to is that in the previous year, the very specific retrofit program for low-income families was cancelled, the reasons for which ministers have come before this committee and others to make their arguments.

Appreciating the chair's caution in terms of the royal recommendation required, what we're encouraging the government to do is.... A lot of this came out of Bill C-48 money, the budget that was rewritten in the previous Parliament, which was then spent by the previous government and then this one. The government ended up cancelling that program.

This was a forum and a format for us to reintroduce the concept to the government and talk about the need and the urgency for it: that we have many families seeking to have these retrofits done but are unable to do it by their own means because by definition they're in a lower-income category; that the minister has the power to spend this money and money is available; that this retrofitting program is being disbursed by the minister, but the specific targeted one that addressed the needs of low-income families was removed, for decisions we won't debate here today.

In the discussion around Bill C-30, we know the government has the power to reintroduce this, has the power to spend this money and make this happen for Canadians whom we are all hearing from, who are seeking to be involved in not only just reducing Canada's greenhouse gas emissions, but also reducing the cost of running their households.

While we'll take the obvious consideration of the chair in terms of the royal recommendation requirements, it should be noted and on the record that the minister has the power to do this, has the money available, and requires no other act of Parliament to do it. It's at their disposal right now. Having cancelled the program, this is an encouragement for them to reconsider that choice and bring it back.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

Mr. Warawa.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Thank you, Chair.

I have a question, through you, for clarification from Mr. Cullen. Is he seeking for the government to have the authority, or is he seeking a program?

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

The government has the authority currently to do this.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Correct. I just wanted to make sure you were aware of that.

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

That was part of the point in the moving of this.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

I thought that's what you said. What you're actually seeking is the program itself.

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

Exactly.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Chair, then it's out of order. I seek your ruling.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

Is there any other discussion before I...?

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Mr. Chair, we applaud the initiative. It speaks to the cuts to the EnerGuide low-income households program of $500 million in the 2006 budget. We were hoping to see this reinstated in the last budget, but it's not there.

It's an important principle, when low-income families are spending somewhere between 15% and 20% of their overall budgets' after tax dollars on energy costs. We support—

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

On a point of order, Mr. Warawa.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Chair, I would have taken the time to express what the government is doing in its budget and its programs, but I didn't speak to that because of the fact that if it's a program that's being introduced, it would require a royal recommendation, and therefore it's out of order. Because it's out of order, I'm not speaking to it.

If Mr. McGuinty is wanting to continue speaking, then I would be first up.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

I intend to deliver my ruling right now.

It is that part 2 of Bill C-30 deals with amendments to the Energy Efficiency Act. This amendment proposes a new section giving the minister the authority to establish a program for the purpose of assisting low-income Canadians to reduce energy consumption of housing projects.

The rule against infringing on the financial initiative of the Crown is one of those things we have discussed before. It's expressed as follows at page 655 of Marleau and Montpetit:

An amendment must not offend the financial initiative of the Crown. An amendment is therefore inadmissible if it imposes a charge on the Public Treasury or if it exceeds the objects or purposes or relaxes the conditions and qualifications as expressed in the Royal Recommendation.

Although paragraph 21(e) of the Energy Efficiency Act provides for the minister:

for the purpose of promoting the efficient use of energy and the use of alternative energy sources...[to] undertake such...projects, programs and activities as in the Minister’s opinion advance that purpose

amendments seeking the authority to use approved funds for new purposes must be accompanied by a new royal recommendation.

Therefore, I find the amendment infringes on the financial initiative of the Crown, and on that basis I must rule it inadmissible. While I understand the desire to get it on the record, we can't use this process to re-establish a dollar program within the context of Bill C-30. Amendment NDP-31 is inadmissible on that ground.

Is that clear?

I've ruled, Mr. Jean.

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

I understand you've ruled, but I think most Canadians would be shocked to find out that 50¢ of every dollar spent on that program was wasted on bureaucracy.