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

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

Mr. Jean, this is not a time to argue what has been argued elsewhere. Thank you.

We are going to move on now to NDP-31.1. You would know it as reference number 2806474. It was passed out this morning. You don't have it as NDP-31.1.

We have extra copies if members don't have it. It was passed out this morning. This is the light bulb one. The light bulb is about to go on.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Could you repeat that number you read out? I may have it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

Reference 2806474.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Okay, I've got it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

If everybody has that, the chair will recognize Mr. Dewar, who is now the man of the moment.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

Members will have before them the amendment that we propose. In essence, what this will do is to phase out the use of incandescent light bulbs. It's been an issue that many around this table will be aware of, the benefits and the necessity for government to act. In fact, it's important to note, Mr. Chair, that this issue was brought forward by members in my community, and they took this issue literally to the doorsteps of Canadians. I know Mr. McGuinty, in his riding, where the Project Porchlight started, was involved as well.

In fact, if you go to their website, you'll see the Prime Minister holding up one of their light bulbs, as well as the Minister of Environment and others who have been great supporters of their initiatives to phase out the use of inefficient technology and bring in efficient technology. What this amendment would do is simply send that signal in a way that is important to consumers, to Canadians, that government is supportive of green clean technologies.

Mr. Chair, members of the committee and Canadians will know that this is an initiative that will help Canadians and industry to deal with the issue of climate change in a very concrete way. People get this--the idea of simply changing a light bulb. This simple measure will make a huge difference to the environment and to Canadians' energy bills. It's not only helping deal with the effects of greenhouse gas emissions that we derive our energy from, but it also saves money for Canadians. One light bulb can generate up to $50 in energy savings over the life of that light bulb and cut greenhouse gas emissions by up to half a tonne over its lifetime.

It's important to note this is not something that would put us on the cutting edge in terms of legislation. This is being done in Australia, which is adopting it. In the United States, there's a bill--a bipartisan initiative--in front of the Congress right now. Nunavut is doing the same thing. So we see that we could be in step with the rest of the world and other jurisdictions if we amend.

There are some concerns people have had, and I want to put those on the table, generally speaking. Some have suggested that with this technology--in other words, the alternatives to the incandescent bulb--there's not enough variety, not enough light that comes from the CFLs, and not the football league, but the compact fluorescent light bulbs. In fact, the technology has changed such that there's enough light emitted from it so that people can use this for their day-to-day lighting. I invite anyone to come into my home and you'll be able to read just fine. And the price point in this technology has come way down. In fact, people save money when they change to this technology.

You'll note from this amendment, which talks about regulation, and that's important, that we're giving time to phase this in. This is not an overnight proposal. As you will see in the amendment, and we're following along with other jurisdictions, as mentioned--the United States, here in Canada, as well as Australia and others--to phase this in. It would take effect in 2012.

Finally, Chair, I want to note that when we talk about the importance of embracing new technologies, we have to look at how it's going to save money--I mentioned that--but also we have to look at how it's going to help different jurisdictions. Presently coal-fired power represents 74% of electricity generated in Alberta. In Ontario it's 18%. By our taking leadership on this issue, what this will do is cut down the reliance on the coal-fired generation. As you've heard from testimony in front of this committee, it's not going to happen overnight, and we certainly know that in Ontario. I believe it's the same in Alberta. So what we need to do, I believe, is to take away the reliance upon coal-fired generation by consumption, and changing the technology is important, and by way of changing, to move away from incandescent lighting. That is a way to do it.

To wrap up, Chair, I think what we have in front of us here is a very common sense idea. It's one that all parties in one way or another have embraced, as I've mentioned, from the Prime Minister to the Minister of Environment to members of the Liberal party, Mr. McGuinty.

One final thing I want to mention, Mr. Chair, is that there have been some concerns about mercury.

Because of the reliance on coal-fired generation, it is entirely improbable that we'll get rid of the mercury emitted from coal-fired generation overnight. Mercury is a situation everyone is concerned with in connection with coal-fired generation.

Bringing down the reliance on coal-fired generation by phasing out incandescents and using CFLs will in fact reduce the amount of mercury in our environment. I say that because there are some concerns around the present technology--not all of it, and this is important to note.

With the compact fluorescent, there is mercury, but when you do the balance and talk to people in the industry--and this has been debated in Australia and other jurisdictions--it's not going to be a concern because of the amount of energy that is going to be saved, along with less emission of greenhouse gas and mercury from coal-fired generated plants. The benefits are going to be much greater than the amount of mercury in the bulbs.

I must add that there are programs right now for recycling, and the amount of trace elements of mercury in bulbs is reduced every time they come up with a new bulb on the market.

I just wanted to put those things out on the table--the concerns people might have--and underline the fact that this is a common sense thing. It is something we can do here and now. It is being done in other jurisdictions, and I look forward to the support of all members for this amendment.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

Thank you, Mr. Dewar.

Mr. Dewar has moved NDP-31.1.

Mr. Scarpaleggia, would you like to debate?

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Yes, thank you, Mr. Chair.

I suppose Mr. Dewar actually addressed one of the issues I was going to raise, and which I will still raise, about the mercury levels in these bulbs.

As a matter of fact, a couple of days after a news report of Mr. Dewar's private member's bill asking that these bulbs be prohibited, a constituent by the name of Robert Rice wrote to me about the disposal problem. He said:

Many of these bulbs contain small levels of the toxic metal mercury, while each bulb by itself offers literally no harm to the users, the mass dumping of them into landfills or trash incinerators could cause detrimental environmental impact in the local environment. The safe disposal of these Compact fluorescent requires special handling, including that bulbs be unbroken and handled much like the safe disposal of alkaline batteries with special facilities to handle and recycle these bulbs.

Mr. Dewar addressed the issue, but....

You mentioned that the benefits of these bulbs in terms of mercury reduction outweigh the problems associated with disposal and the environment. Are you basing your recommendation on any particular studies?

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Yes. If you have a chance to go to Project Porchlight, which I mentioned, they underline the cost benefit.

Through the chair, I should just tell you that if you look at the reliance aspect, as I mentioned, in Ontario 18% of the energy is presently generated by coal. As I mentioned in my opening remarks, by using just one bulb, you are going to be cutting down by about half a tonne over the lifetime of a bulb if you change to this technology. You can see from that one example how changing one light bulb brings down the emissions and the amount emitted from coal-fired generation that the cost benefit makes sense.

I might add that we're not reliant 100% on CFLs. If you look at LEDs as well, you don't have that issue, and there are sodium and other products coming on.

I think it's really important to underline that this is an emerging technology, and in no way is the amendment in my private member's bill written to say you have to rely upon CFLs. It's simply saying that all lighting, by the timelines we've put in here, will have met certain efficiency standards.

If we look at other jurisdictions, they've done the same cost-benefit analysis. We see that there are recycling programs in place. In fact, the private sector has already done this with IKEA. I think it's one of those issues in which timelines are involved. It's already being done in other jurisdictions; we'd have the timelines to phase in those concerns you have.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Mr. Chair, this is a fascinating topic, and I commend the honourable member for his initiative.

It also seems like a fairly complex issue, and I'm wondering if it might not be better to deal with this as a private member's bill and to have hearings, to invite people to testify. It's potentially a great idea. We could have two or three meetings on this to look at the cost-benefit analysis in terms of mercury emissions and so on in greater detail.

I'm not sure I feel comfortable voting on this before 5:15 tonight.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

Mr. Warawa, then Mr. Godfrey, then Mr. Vellacott.

Mr. Warawa.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Thank you, Chair.

I don't think there's a member on this committee who would be opposed to defining energy efficient light bulbs and appliances. We all support any way we can cut down on the use of energy.

A number of years ago I changed to a fluorescent type of light bulb, and that technology is getting better and better too. They now have instant on. Some of them still have to warm up, but a number of them are instant on.

On the suggestion about a private member's bill, that may be the more appropriate way of dealing with this. There are a lot of questions that I have and that I had. Maybe I'll hold on then.

Before I close, though, I'd like to hear from Ms. Buckley. Is this the best way of handling this, defining 60 lumens? Is that the appropriate number? What's the best way of handling this--legislatively, in regulations, or by way of a private member's bill?

[Carol Buckley]

It's unusual to put a numeric standard in an act, and it's unusual to have a numeric standard with no consultation and analysis. From my perspective, I saw this an hour or so ago and I haven't been able to do an analysis of what 60 watts per lumen means in any detail. I can give you three reference points that between my colleague and me we were able to dig up to inform the committee in that lapse of time.

The Energy Star standard to replace a 60-watt bulb would not meet 60 lumens per watt. It would fail. So, to me, that makes 60 lumens per watt sound pretty significant. I can't tell you if it's a lot more stringent and how it applies to other lighting products. I just have that one example--comparing this to a 60-watt bulb replaced by the Energy Star bulb wouldn't beat it. I haven't been back to my office to talk to the technicians, so this is just based on the hour and a half we had between these two sessions.

I have two other reference points. One is Australia and the other is California. The popular press likes to speak of these jurisdictions' desire to ban the incandescent bulb, and that's in effect what their standards will do. However, they're not putting their standards forth written that way. They are choosing a technologies' performance standard. They're not looking at 60 watts per lumen. California is looking at 20 watts per lumen for 2010, and maybe 50 watts per lumen for 2017, but they haven't decided yet. They are going through a regulatory process and they are doing the type of consultation and analysis that I talked about earlier.

I can't tell you that 60 lumens per watt sounds good or bad. Off the top of it, it sounds quite stringent. It's similar in Australia, where they have the intent to ban the incandescent bulb. They plan to do it through a performance standard. They haven't landed on the number yet. So we can't use Australia as a reason that 60 lumens per watt makes sense.

I would feel much more comfortable if I had a chance to talk to our technicians about what that actually means, but the number causes me some reservation.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Thank you.

I have a question then, through you, Chair, to Mr. Dewar. Would he be willing to remove this because of the lack of information? We don't want to stall the progress that is being made here at this committee. We've heard a suggestion that maybe it's more appropriate for a private member's bill to be the way to deal with this. We all agree energy efficiency is the way to go. More efficient light bulbs are the way to go. Many of us here are personally doing that, but I don't think this is the right mechanism right here in Bill C-30. Would he remove his amendment?

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

I think we should discuss it and vote on it. I think one of the concerns I have is that a private member's bill.... We're here right now dealing with the issue of energy efficiencies. I guess I'm a little surprised that members aren't willing to have a little courage and actually embrace it. You mentioned around this table that there have been many people who have embraced it. We have examples of other jurisdictions.

I want to add, Chair, that when you look at the compact fluorescents, their efficiencies are 44 to 80 lumens per watt presently. That information is there. Just to give you an idea, with incandescents right now, the efficiencies are ranging from 7 to 24 lumens per watt. If we look at the idea of efficiencies, the idea of phase-ins, and the idea that we're not banning anything, as was mentioned by staff, we're looking at phasing out and bringing up efficiencies that already exist. We have the technology here. We have the ability to do this. It's a matter, not of a way, but it's really a matter of a will. I guess I'm appealing to people around this table to embrace that.

I hear from my colleagues from the Liberal side that they have concerns about the storage. Well, there are programs to do that presently, and we have a phase-in period. We know that if it's a private member's bill...when are we going to get to that? We're here now talking about energy efficiencies, we're here now talking about dealing with greenhouse gases, and we're here now dealing with the ability to do something.

I guess I'm appealing to members to take the opportunity now. If there are amendments to suggest, fine. I think Canadians would be surprised that we just turned our noses and turned away from this, because it's a common sense solution.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

Mr. Warawa, he's answering your question.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

He has, and he wants to move forward and jump to the front of the parade without any information, which is unfortunate. It's really important, but it has to be done properly.

I have a question to the department. What's the constitutionality of moving forward in this fashion? Again, we all want to see very efficient use of the energy in Canada. We want to do it in a practical way, respecting jurisdiction and the Constitution. Would you comment on that.

[Brenda MacKenzie, Legal Counsel, Department of Justice]

If I may, there is a problem with the amendment as drafted in that it focuses on sale. The act we're dealing with is based on the federal trade and commerce power. You will note within the act the point at which products are caught is when they cross borders. We do not actually regulate the sale of anything, because we're getting into provincial jurisdiction. Where the products must be caught is where the federal government has the authority to regulate, which is when they cross borders. So there is a problem, as drafted, with concentrating on sale.

Where the product has to fit in is in accordance with section 4 of the act, which is the key provision that says you can't be bringing this stuff into Canada or shipping it now, as amended, across provincial boundaries at any time unless it meets standards. That's the concept that it should fit into.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

Mr. Vellacott.

[Maurice Vellacott, Conservative, Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, SK]

I have a lot of questions, actually, about this because it is an intriguing and interesting area for all of us and for our future, obviously. I have children and grandchildren. I think a lot of us are concerned about the possible dumping of mercury. There is some intimation of storage and so on here, but we sure don't want this in landfills. I would be rather pleased to have people in at this committee, or at some future point on a private member's bill, to hear more about that, because I think there are issues of safety and security and storage.

Carol, you've responded in part. Again, the comparison was made to coal-fired plants as opposed to hydro or whatever. That was the math used to explain why we'd be better ahead on that equation on the mercury scale, using coal-fired plants. But those are not the only kinds of power plants that are used in the country, of course.

Do you have any comments beyond saying we do need more study on this? Do you buy the math that was offered here? Is that something you've heard of before, in terms of the calculation that Mr. Dewar gave just moments ago?

[Carol Buckley]

I think it's safe to say that when you're reducing energy usage in a province that relies more heavily on carbon-based fuels, you will have a greater benefit to the environmental picture. You'll be creating fewer of all the pollutants that the carbon-based fuels deliver. In my view, those were apt comparisons. I don't have the numbers in my head and I haven't run them, but certainly the less you use carbon, the more you save energy, the more pollutants you're going to save. So that seems valid to me.

[Maurice Vellacott, Conservative, Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, SK]

So in a province like Quebec or Manitoba, where there's more hydro and we're using natural gas in some of the power plants, that equation would not work out; that math calculation would obviously not rate in the same manner it does with coal firing.

[Carol Buckley]

That's right. It depends on the energy form you're using; you're saving whatever pollutants are associated with the energy used, so if you're using a low-polluting source, you won't be saving the same amount of pollutants.

[Maurice Vellacott, Conservative, Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, SK]

I think that simply makes my point: there needs to be much more study or examination of this by experts in the field. Your colleagues and many others within the industries need to do the kinds of specific comparisons that will give us a sense of where we're at on the safety, security, and storage issues on these questions.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

Monsieur Bigras is next.