Evidence of meeting #24 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 amendment.

A recording is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Carol Buckley  Director General, Office of Energy Efficiency, Department of Natural Resources
Brenda MacKenzie  Legal Counsel, Department of Justice
Guylaine Roy  Director General, Environmental Affairs, Department of Transport
Oriana Trombetti  Acting General Counsel and Associate Head, Transport, Justice Canada
Catherine Higgens  Director, Environmental Initiatives Division, Department of Transport

3:30 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Laurie Hawn

We have a quorum. I'll invite the press to take their leave, please.

We are going to pick up at clause 46, which is addressed by amendment L-29.1.

I'll invite Mr. McGuinty to speak to that.

(On clause 46)

3:30 p.m.

Liberal

David McGuinty Liberal Ottawa South, ON

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I just want to take a moment to present this amendment. Through this amendment we are trying to again help refine the whole question of energy efficiency standards for the country and for energy-using products, and at the same time not just refine but bolster the need for us to move more forthrightly and more aggressively on energy efficiency, given the competitive nature of the planet now as we move toward a more carbon-constrained future.

What we've done is we've added at the bottom of page 32, for those members who are following in Bill C-30 itself, subsection (4), to call on the government within one year after the day this subsection comes into force to make regulations establishing energy efficiency standards for all energy-using products. We've applied two conditional expressions to all of those energy-using products, those that have a significant or those that have an increasing impact on energy consumption in Canada.

We believe this would help us--and particularly when we speak about energy-using products that might have an increasing impact on energy consumption in Canada--identify emerging sectors, emerging products even, that are particularly high-energy-consuming products in the Canadian marketplace. That might be the IT sector or laptops or PCs. We're not prejudging what those would be, but we would like to see regulations established on that front within one year.

A second thing we've added--again in order to increase environment accountability, this time energy efficiency accountability--is we asked that the standards that are set in subsection (3) be reviewed by the government at least once every three years to make sure that the levels of energy consumption that are provided for are at least equal to the levels set by the most stringent standards in all jurisdictions of North America.

It also reflects the fact that of course our connection with the North American marketplace is strong. Our manufacturing connection is strong, and in fact it helps Canada lead North America by racing to the top. So if a jurisdiction, say South Dakota, were looking at energy consumption standards that were slightly higher than what is the case in Canada now, we might look to those. It doesn't prejudge which jurisdiction in North America might pull the country forward. Again, it's predicated not on a notion but on the reality that the race is on, and those manufacturers of white goods, for example, those manufacturers of any energy-using product now understand the carbon-constrained future we are evolving into.

We believe this would help government standards catch up to what is already clearly going on in the marketplace, and hence this is what amendment L-29.1 is all about, Mr. Chair.

3:35 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Laurie Hawn

Okay.

Go ahead, Mr. Warawa.

3:35 p.m.

Conservative

Mark Warawa Conservative Langley, BC

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I agree with the intent of the amendment. The fact is we're already implementing a comprehensive regime of minimum energy efficiency standards to cover over 80% of appliances and equipment energy use in the residential, commercial, and industrial sectors. We've already announced plans to regulate 20 new products, to increase the stringency of standards for 10 more over the next four years, and, through a consultation process, to prepare to consider products that have not been identified yet.

My question is to the department, Ms. Buckley. We want to respect due process, but we do support the spirit and the intent of the amendment. To respect due process, the recommendation is that we have a one-year timeframe. It would be within one year of the act's coming into force.

Is that a realistic timeframe, considering the consultation that's necessary?

March 28th, 2007 / 3:35 p.m.

Carol Buckley Director General, Office of Energy Efficiency, Department of Natural Resources

We are currently planning, as the member said, to do about 30 regulations over a period of four years. To implement the amendment in one year, in my view, is not technically feasible. It would require us to do four times as many in a year, and it's not a matter of just working four times harder; to develop a regulation that is technically feasible, that is implementable, and that gets us the environmental reductions we are seeking, we have to consult and understand what's happening internationally. We have to talk to the manufacturers, the shippers, the users. We like to harmonize within Canada, so we would want to have consultations with provincial jurisdictions that have authority over goods produced and sold within their borders, so that there isn't disharmony within Canada. That's very important for trade reasons. We would also want to make sure we have test standards in place so that we could enforce the regulations, and this can't be done for tens and tens of regulations simultaneously.

Finally, we would like to be able to follow the due process of prepublishing standards and getting comment that way, and then be able to follow the Canada Gazette process, which takes a certain amount of time. My only comment here is that I don't think the volume of regulations that the amendment speaks to, or in fact the volume that the government is proposing, can be technically accomplished within one year. That's my only comment.

3:40 p.m.

Conservative

Mark Warawa Conservative Langley, BC

Mr. Chair, my follow-up question, through you, is to Ms. Buckley.

You can sense an urgency from Canadians to act, to provide efficiencies in energy use, and this government is committed and already acting to do that. What is the shortest timeframe, respecting the spirit of what's being proposed here by the Liberal amendment? What is the soonest we could do that?

3:40 p.m.

Director General, Office of Energy Efficiency, Department of Natural Resources

Carol Buckley

I think the proposals we put forward were fairly aggressive, and in fact Canada already leads a lot of the world with a lot of products. The way we wanted to proceed was to implement the four years that the government has proposed to do some 30 regulations. That doesn't mean we couldn't add additional products to that list, but it would be very difficult to do the volume of all the products that represent significant energy use or growing energy use. We also have our eyes on that growing category; it's extremely important.

We think it takes a four-year plan to do the regulations effectively and to do them right. I can't say that I think it would make sense to cut that in half in order to look like we're moving more quickly, because there just wouldn't be the capacity in the groups we deal with, let alone within the government.

3:40 p.m.

Conservative

Mark Warawa Conservative Langley, BC

Ms. Buckley, four years sounds like an awfully long time. I would be interested to hear from the mover if it could be done substantially more quickly. I think you would find consensus to do that. I look forward to comments from the mover.

3:40 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Laurie Hawn

Mr. Jean, you're next.

3:40 p.m.

Conservative

Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB

Actually, Mr. Warawa took care of all my comments.

3:40 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Laurie Hawn

Monsieur Bigras is next.

3:40 p.m.

Bloc

Bernard Bigras Bloc Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC

Mr. Chairman, I too am leaning in the same direction as Mr. Warawa.

In Canada, when energy standards are being established, must the Council of Ministers of the Environment and of Energy be consulted? It seems to me that there is a major deficiency in this motion, given that it excludes collaboration with the provinces.

Is it the norm to consult the Council of Ministers of the Environment and of Energy before establishing this type of standard?

3:40 p.m.

Director General, Office of Energy Efficiency, Department of Natural Resources

Carol Buckley

Yes, it is the usual practice to consult provincial ministries.

My apologies, but I will answer in English. I am more sure of myself in that language.

We consult. That's part of the time it takes to do 30 regulations, not in one year but in four years. On each regulation we consult with our provincial and territorial colleagues respecting their own jurisdiction over energy efficiency regulations. Some of them have them and some of them don't. We want to make sure they align their regulations with our own so that we don't have patches in Canada that have different regulations, which is very difficult for consumers and for the producers of some of these products.

So we certainly cooperate with them. It may not be evident in the bill itself, but it's certainly part of how we implement the bill. In fact, we've just had a very significant consultation on regulations this past week, including representatives of most of the provinces.

3:40 p.m.

Bloc

Bernard Bigras Bloc Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC

This type of standard is therefore usually presented to the Council of Ministers of the Environment and of Energy, among others. This collaboration is to my mind obvious and necessary, and I would in this regard have a friendly amendment to move a little later on.

I know that the question was asked during the appearance of other stakeholders, but I would like to know, given this structure by virtue of which ministers will be consulted, if you consider the timeframe to be a realistic one.

3:45 p.m.

Director General, Office of Energy Efficiency, Department of Natural Resources

Carol Buckley

For a great number of us who work at Natural Resources Canada, our business is energy efficiency regulations. We are world leaders in many of those regulations. When we sat down and thought out what this piece of work would look like, we did our very best to design a program that made sense in terms of the timelines. So I can't but repeat that, in designing that, we designed a four-year time period to do the standards that we thought we needed.

There's a lot of change in some of the products we want to regulate. There are a lot of new products that we want to regulate where we simply don't have the technical information. Other countries are doing the same kind of technical due diligence. If you read in the newspapers about other jurisdictions that are making progress in regulating different products, they too are taking a 2010, 2011, or 2012 timeframe to set their standard.

3:45 p.m.

Bloc

Bernard Bigras Bloc Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC

I could suggest a friendly amendment such that the amendment would read as follows:[...] the Governor in Council shall, in collaboration with the provinces, make regulations establishing energy efficiency standards [...]

In this way, we would ensure that provinces are consulted. I would limit it to that for now. I may intervene later when we discuss the matter of timelines.

3:45 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Laurie Hawn

Mr. Bigras, could you please put that in writing?

We just need to see it so it's exact.

You're not next, Mr. Jean.

3:45 p.m.

Conservative

Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB

I understand. I'm just asking to put myself on the list.

3:45 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Laurie Hawn

Okay.

Mr. Godfrey.

3:45 p.m.

Liberal

John Godfrey Liberal Don Valley West, ON

Subject to seeing the exact words, we're open to that friendly amendment.

Ms. Buckley, I don't want to put words in your mouth, but your concerns were not about our new subsection 20(4), which is that we have a review once every three years. That was not the problem. We're now trying to figure out what is a reasonable amount.

Again, I don't want to put words in your mouth, but you don't object to the principles of extending this exercise to try to capture some of the emerging sources.

3:45 p.m.

A voice

[Inaudible--Editor]

3:45 p.m.

Liberal

John Godfrey Liberal Don Valley West, ON

Okay. So I guess what it comes to is, to what extent is there a resource problem at your end, or is there just a process problem out there? Is there a little of each?

There's only so much your folks can do in a certain amount of time, but then when you mix in the council of ministers and so on, it starts to get more complicated. So can you can give me the balance between your resource problems and process problems?

We want an ambitious target, like Mr. Warawa, but we don't want unreasonable targets. So we need to find out if the problem is at our end or with the people we talk to.

3:45 p.m.

Director General, Office of Energy Efficiency, Department of Natural Resources

Carol Buckley

It's as you suggest; it's a bit of both. It's partly that the resources we have allocated to us require this timeframe, but it's not only that problem--some of the communities we deal with on these products are the same communities.

Just to take one example of the member's suggestion for provincial consultations, provinces don't have the capacity to do as much simultaneous work as we do in the federal government because they have smaller staffs. We already get a little push-back from them when we want to consult them about things and are consulting about a large number of things at one time.

It's not just the provinces but the whole process of doing due technical diligence. I'm concerned about whether, even if we had no resource constraints whatsoever, there are enough people conversant with the technical and economic factors of all of these products that I would feel comfortable saying to you that this could be done in a year if we had no resource constraints. I can't.

3:45 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Laurie Hawn

Mr. Lussier.

3:45 p.m.

Bloc

Marcel Lussier Bloc Brossard—La Prairie, QC

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

My question is for Ms. Buckley.

With regard to energy efficiency, I believe that the transformer used to recharge electrical cars should be included in the list of appliances that you will be considering. I am of the view that it will have a very large positive impact that will only increase over time. It is easy to imagine that in the near future, people will be buying electric cars that they will want to recharge when they get home.

Are there any studies underway as to the energy efficiency of these transformers?