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

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

With regard to this amendment, I believe we must be extremely careful. We can of course estimate that the use of this type of light bulb could, for example, allow us to reduce our electricity consumption by 75%. However, we might, in adopting an amendment aimed at reducing negative effects on the environment, be creating other problems, for example with regard to the mercury contained in these light bulbs. It is clear, given the quantity of mercury involved, that recycling is necessary. In short, the adoption of this amendment might well lead to a reduction in our electricity consumption, but it could also give rise to other negative consequences for the environment. This is why I believe that prudence is key.

In Quebec, there are programs in place that among other things offer $25 incentives for the purchase of these light bulbs. I believe that we must in this area do things progressively. I very much like the idea of this proposal being included in a private member's bill. We could then, as a committee, invite witnesses and evaluate the whys and wherefores of this proposal.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

Go ahead, Mr. Jean.

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

I think the reality is, Mr. Chair, that we have not heard from one expert in relation to the safety ramifications, and the concerns brought forward are I think very important, especially with ongoing pollution.

We have to make sure we don't make mistakes, but I'm just going to put it on the record, Mr. Chair, that I think the department should take note that every member on this entire committee is very positive towards this movement, and we should examine it and bring it forward.

I would suggest that the NDP, since they're the movers of this particular motion, should bring forward a private member's bill. I think they could count on all members supporting it, as long as the proper information is in place and safety concerns are taken into consideration.

Was that under a minute?

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

It was 35 seconds; well done.

Is there no further debate?

Go ahead, Mr. Cullen.

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

I think we've made the switch back in; Mr. Dewar has to go to another appointment.

We've heard the concerns. Before we move to the vote, it's very interesting to me that no one put forward an amendment or a solution to the concerns raised, even though they exist. It's also very interesting to me that when Australia and other jurisdictions announced this, Canadians celebrated that movement, and members of this committee were in the public celebrating that movement, yet when the moment comes for some courage to potentially stand this motion and reconsider pieces--we have seen other amendments on which we have not heard expert testimony--the courage wasn't there all the way through.

It is sadness in true fashion. There is an opportunity to offer Canadians something real, something tangible, that other jurisdictions and other countries have moved forward on, and we've applauded, but for some now manufactured and whipped-up reasons, when the moment comes before us, it can't possibly be done. When we're going to reduce energy usage, when we're going to reduce the amount of mercury produced into our atmosphere through a smokestack, somehow the minuscule amount in some of these light bulbs is a greater threat than the known amount coming out of the smokestacks of coal-fired generation in this country. That equation is somehow manifest in members' minds.

We seek to have compromise. We seek to have good dialogue at this committee. We feel we brought forward arguments that addressed the concerns of members in this committee, and they should go back to their constituents and understand that today, on this one issue, we've made a lot of progress in this committee; we found votes from all sides.

On this one, what I've heard today is that from all sides of the House there's support for the NDP to move this through a private member's bill. We'd encourage the government to move with even greater haste, because we've all been witness to the private member process, and it can take time. I appreciate Mr. Jean's encouraging me along, but I want to note that in this process today, when we had an intelligent motion brought forward to deal with something concrete that Canadians can actually put their hands on and realize that the government is showing leadership, members on this committee panicked from some imagined scenario of doom falling from the sky. It's unfortunate, but we'll soldier on and bring more motions forward to get this done.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

Thank you, Mr. Cullen.

Are you ready for the question on amendment NDP-31.1?

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

Can we please have a recorded vote, Mr. Chair?

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

A recorded vote.

(Amendment negatived) [See Minutes of Proceedings]

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

So new clause 46.1 under the amendments to the Energy Efficiency Act does not pass.

That is the end of the clauses on the Energy Efficiency Act, unless Mr. Warawa is adding something.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Under new clause 46.1, Mr. Chair, we've tabled an amendment--

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

You're getting ahead of us.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Sorry.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

That is the end of part 2, the amendments to the Energy Efficiency Act.

We're going to move on to part 3, amendments to the Motor Vehicle Fuel Consumption Standards Act. We need to change officials.

Let's suspend for five minutes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

Let's reconvene, s'il vous plaît.

I'd like to welcome two officials from Transport, Madam Roy and Madam Higgens, and one from Justice, Madam Trombetti. Welcome.

The bells will ring at 5:30. We'll get as far as we can. We'll suspend for the votes and then come back. The good news is there will be supper after the votes.

We are starting part 3, amendments to the Motor Vehicle Fuel Consumption Standards Act. The first clause is a new clause, clause 46.1. Don't be confused with the last one; that was in a different part.

We've got two amendments currently. The first is L-30, so we'll start with it.

Go ahead, Mr. McGuinty.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

This is a short preambular addition and replacement to the Motor Vehicle Fuel Consumption Standards Act. The middle paragraph sets an aspirational target for the country. It is basically calling on the Government of Canada to be committed to having fuel consumption standards that meet or exceed international best practices.

We see this as particularly fitting in the preamble section, Mr. Chair, because we think we should be aspiring. We think we should be racing to the top in terms of fuel consumption standards. We know our automakers can win the race. We know they are working hard to win that race. We think this act would again have government catch up to where the industry is already. As I'm sure my colleague Mr. Watson would confirm, whether it's on the floor or in the boardroom, people are working hard to bring the Canadian auto sector to the very front of the pack. It's a competitive business, but we have every confidence that Canadian vehicle manufacturers are going to win the race.

We recognize, of course, that this industry is connected to North American industry and the parts and supply industry, but we have every confidence that they're going to win that race. This, we think, reflects that we are no longer talking about what we can't do; we're talking about what we can do.

That, in short form, is why L-30 is here, Mr. Chair. I so move it.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

Is there debate?

Go ahead, Monsieur Bigras.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I realize I will need to choose between two amendments. There is one aspect in the Liberal one that I like very much. It establishes a better standard than the Conservative Party.

The Conservative Party talks about establishing an ambitious and realistic standard. On the other hand, the Liberals put forward an amendment that clearly talks about having fuel consumption standards that meet or exceed international best practices. It is quite obvious, I believe, that the standard and the reference are more strict in the Liberal amendment.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

Go ahead, Mr. Jean.

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

I would like a definition of “international best practices”. I don't know what that is. I don't know how anybody else will. I didn't find it in the definitions section, so I'm wondering if somebody can enlighten me on that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

Does anybody at the end of the room have a good understanding or definition of “international best practices”?

[Guylaine Roy, Director General, Environmental Affairs, Department of Transport]

Actually, this is one of the questions we had when we reviewed the motion. How do you define “international best practices” in that industry? Japan has some standards; the EU is moving with some standards; we know about California. But how do you define “international best practices”?

The second thing is the commitment to “meet or exceed international best practices”. There's movement in the world in terms of standards, so what happens if that standard changes and gets better? Would we have to constantly adjust to the international best practices?

It's quite challenging to go with that type of wording. A preamble is supposed to give some guidance to the legislation, and that would be very difficult.

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

On that very question, how do you enforce something like that? On the enforceability of the provision in the first place, if somebody was going to make the government do what international best practices are, and I would imagine some group would come forward and try to force the government to do it, I would suggest it's vague and unenforceable at law. That is my guess. I would like to hear from the department on that.

[Guylaine Roy]

Well, I would think it's open to interpretation: what is an international best practice? Somebody could say, this is this one and that is this one. This preamble is to guide the standard a bit. It would be really difficult, by regulation, to guide a standard with a broad statement like that.

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

Isn't it fair to say, Ms. Roy, that indeed a court would find it too vague and too uncertain to actually enforce?

[Guylaine Roy]

Well, I don't know what a court would do. Certainly in terms of public servants working on the regulation, to have such a standard, where do you go? Where do you start? I don't know what a court would do, but I guess the first thing would be, what is an international best practice? You could have a long debate on that.