Natural Resources Committee on Oct. 19th, 2006

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

Thank you.

With that, I want to thank all of our witnesses today for their very efficient answers. Thank you very much. I think that was a great help to the committee. I wish we had had more time for the initial presentation, because it was very good. I think it will mean more to the committee as time progresses. It's a very good base to start from. Again, I thank you very much for your time today.

With that, we have other items on the agenda. Moving on to committee business, we have notices of motion from the Honourable Mr. Cullen. We'll deal with them one at a time.

Mr. Cullen, do you want to read the motion?

[Roy Cullen, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Yes, and thank you, Mr. Chair.

I think the motion is in front of everybody. I'll start with the EnerGuide motion. I'm not going to read it, as I think everybody has it in front of them, but I'd like to spend a few moments giving the background as to why I'm bringing this motion forward.

We're mostly familiar now with the subject matter. The EnerGuide for houses and EnerGuide for low-income houses programs were just two of the many programs that were put on hold or scrapped. At the time, the Minister of Natural Resources defended the decision by claiming that 50% of the money went into administration, but when we had the deputy minister here, he clarified that and indicated that only 12¢ out of every dollar went to administration and the other 38¢ was involved in pre- and post-audits of the program.

In spite of very clear advice from the department officials—and I have obtained, by the way, under access to information, the briefing note on that if anyone would like to review it—the minister and the government decided to scrap the EnerGuide program. The decision to do so seems to be based not on the advice from the department, but on some other factors.

Mr. Chair, that's an error that should be corrected. I invite the parliamentary secretary to admit that error in his observations. There's no shame in that, and it's clear to everyone in this case that a mistake has been made. Clifford Maynes, Executive Director of Green Communities Canada, has stated that the cancellation of the EnerGuide Program “could set back residential energy efficiency at least 10 years.”

On average, that program made it possible to achieve 30% energy savings, and its cost of $75 million from October 2003 to March 2005 resulted in $975 million in energy savings over the duration of investments for energy efficient upgrades.

It's clear that the department knew it was a mistake. NGOs and environmental experts who have come out strongly against this decision have said it was a mistake, and we in this committee, like all Canadians, understand that it was a mistake. Therefore, with the support of colleagues around this table and in the interests of sound public policy, we need to demand that the minister reinstate this program immediately for the benefit of all Canadians.

That's all I have to say, really. I tried to keep my remarks brief on the EnerGuide program. The wind power we'll deal with secondly.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

Yes, I think it's easier to do one at a time.

Will you read the motion into the record so we can officially move it?

[Roy Cullen, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Yes. And based on what happened on Tuesday, we have reviewed the motion with the clerk in advance, and the clerk has advised that the motion is in order.

The motion reads as follows:

That the Committee regrets that the Government rejected the advice of departmental officials to continue and renew the EnerGuide for Houses and EnerGuide for Low-Income Houses programs; and

That the Committee calls upon the Minister of Natural Resources immediately to reinstate these programs; and that this motion be reported to the House.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

Thank you.

[Dick Harris, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

I didn't quite get all the motion.

[Roy Cullen, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

I can read it in English if you like. It states:

That the Committee regrets that the Government rejected the advice of departmental officials to continue and renew the EnerGuide for Houses and EnerGuide for Low Income Houses programs; and

That the Committee calls upon the Minister of Natural Resources immediately to reinstate these programs; and that this motion be reported to the House.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

Thank you.

We'll resume debate.

[Dick Harris, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

I'd like to argue that this motion is still out of order on a number of counts. The first issue is that the EnerGuide for low-income households was in fact managed by the Minister of Human Resources and Social Development, not Natural Resources Canada. I believe this motion is more appropriate for the human resources and social development committee rather than the natural resources committee, because it was under its management. It was the ministry that dealt with this EnerGuide program. So quite plainly, I think the motion is in the wrong committee.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

Thank you, Mr. Harris.

Mr. Cullen.

[Roy Cullen, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

The reality is that EnerGuide for houses is owned, operated, and administered by NRCan, and the two are companion programs. In the House of Commons when questions have been put to the government about EnerGuide, the Minister of Natural Resources has responded to them. However, it may well be true that the administration and operation of the EnerGuide for low-income houses program is in another department. If that is the case, I'd be happy to say, on a technicality, “and renew the EnerGuide for Houses Program”, and delete “EnerGuide for Low Income Houses Programs”. I think the motion loses something by doing that, because they're companion programs. One happens to be administered by another department.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

Are you moving an amendment?

[Roy Cullen, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Yes, I would move that amendment. It's just in the preamble. It's not in the motion, although there would be a requirement to make an amendment to the motion itself, because it's now in the plural. So what I would move, then, is that the preamble should read as follows:

That the committee regrets that the government rejected the advice of departmental officials to continue and renew the EnerGuide for Houses program; that the committee calls upon the Minister of Natural Resources immediately to reinstate this program; and that this motion be reported to the House.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

We have a new amendment before the committee, so the debate will resume on the amendment.

We are now speaking to the amendment, Mr. Harris.

[Dick Harris, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

My point was that because this program was under the management of Human Resources and Social Development, any debate on this motion should take place in that committee.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

We're now speaking to the amendment, Mr. Harris. The portion you identified has been removed. At least that was my understanding. Did you not say that the low-income housing part was in another department? If this was the case, then clearly it would be beyond the scope of the mandate of this committee, and it would be out of order. Mr. Cullen has proposed an amendment, which we are now debating. It is to renew the EnerGuide for houses program. If that's not the case, perhaps you could clarify.

I'm sorry, the motion that is before the committee is the amendment itself. The amendment is simply that “EnerGuide for Low-Income Houses” be deleted from the previous motion, and that we change “these programs” to “this program”. That is what is under debate right now, whether we accept this amendment.

[Dick Harris, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Mr. Chairman, could I have the motion, as amended, read in its entirety?

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

I understand where you're going—you're seeking clarity. We're not going to debate the motion until we have dealt with the amendment. The only reason I would reread the amended motion is for clarity. We're not dealing with that. We're simply dealing with the deleted part. So to put it backwards, I will read how it will appear after the amendment, if the amendment is accepted. It will say:

That the committee regrets that the government rejected the advice of departmental officials to continue and renew the EnerGuide for Houses program; that the committee calls upon the Minister of Natural Resources immediately to reinstate this program; and that this motion be reported to the House.

The motion before the House is an amendment to say we will delete “and EnerGuide for Low-Income Houses programs”, and change “these” to “this” and “programs” to “program”. That is the amendment.

Madame DeBellefeuille.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

Are you speaking to the amendment?

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Yes.

As a new member, I've learned a lot about procedures and so on in the last 10 minutes. Mr. Cullen has really shown good will in submitting an amendment. It would be common sense for the committee to support this amendment so that we can dispose of it.

All members, with the exception of a few, have really concluded that the EnerGuide Program is important and essential and that it should be reinstated. That's what our electors and fellow citizens are asking of us. Its relevance has been largely demonstrated by the report of the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

Is there a resumption of the debate on the amendment? Is there any further debate on the amendment?

As there is no further debate on the amendment, I'll call the question.

(Amendment agreed to) [See Minutes of Proceedings]

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

We now have a motion before the House that says:

That the Committee regrets that the Government rejected the advice of departmental officials to continue and renew the EnerGuide for Houses and EnerGuide for Low Income Houses programs; and That the Committee calls upon the Minister of Natural Resources immediately to reinstate these programs; and that this motion be reported to the House.

The debate will resume.

Mr. Harris.

[Dick Harris, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Mr. Chairman, I would like to speak to the motion. The motion indicates that this program was in fact an effective program and that the government rejected any advice that it was an effective program. That assumption or suggestion is--

[Christian Paradis, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

I just want to be clear. I thought we were supposed to debate the motion on Tuesday. That's what I understood. I had discussions with Mr. Cullen, and the motion itself, the debate would be on Tuesday.