Evidence of meeting #17 for Natural Resources in the 40th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was products.
A recording is available from Parliament.
3:45 p.m.
Director, Equipment Division, Department of Natural Resources
We normally review the regulations regularly. There is no pre-determined period, but when a product's efficiency changes, we watch the markets and we conduct tests to see if a new standard is warranted. if it is, we begin a process to revise the standards.
3:45 p.m.
Bloc
3:45 p.m.
Bloc
France Bonsant Bloc Compton—Stanstead, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
It mentions satellite set top boxes here. What the heck are they? Among the regulated products, we have commercial washing machines, dishwashers, fluorescent and incandescent lamps and battery chargers, but also satellite set top boxes. I was wondering what that is.
3:45 p.m.
Director, Equipment Division, Department of Natural Resources
I think it is a device that controls your television signal. It sits on top of your television set. A satellite set top box.
3:45 p.m.
Bloc
France Bonsant Bloc Compton—Stanstead, QC
Like a battery charger or some kind of booster? Is that it?
3:45 p.m.
Director, Equipment Division, Department of Natural Resources
It is a part of your cable or satellite system and it sends the signals into your TV set.
3:45 p.m.
Bloc
France Bonsant Bloc Compton—Stanstead, QC
I was not here when the bill was studied. I am a new girl too. I am always telling people that I am the new kid on the block.
In the whole area of energy efficiency, have you discussed the possibility of expanding the use of freight trains, and commuter trains for passengers?
3:45 p.m.
Director, Equipment Division, Department of Natural Resources
I am sorry; I do not know what you mean by “train“.
3:45 p.m.
Bloc
France Bonsant Bloc Compton—Stanstead, QC
Using trains is a way to help reduce greenhouse gases. When 75 containers are on a train, there are 75 fewer trucks on the road.
Have you looked at the merits of improving the railways, both passenger trains and freight trains?
3:45 p.m.
Director General, Office of Energy Efficiency, Department of Natural Resources
Under the auspices of this act, but otherwise outside the act, we provide advice to companies to improve the energy efficiency of their transport.
But that is not part of this bill.
3:45 p.m.
Conservative
3:45 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
A couple of my questions are very specific to the bill, and a couple more are on the process that got us here. Maybe I'll start with the general questions.
This is the third viewing of this bill. It has taken quite a while. Has it simply been the parliamentary calendar that has stopped us to this point? The reason I ask is not to cast aspersions or anything like that, but just to understand our process in looking for the next product efficiency bill. In the process that got us to this point, are there any lessons learned that would expedite work in the future? Strictly because electronics and energy efficiency and all those things change so quickly, it can't take the Canadian Parliament three full tries before we get through some of these things.
3:50 p.m.
Director General, Office of Energy Efficiency, Department of Natural Resources
I think it really has been the calendar, because we've been essentially ready with these amendments twice previously.
However, we haven't been sitting idle and waiting for the amendments. In December of 2008, John was able to publish new and more stringent regulations for 11 products, and he and his group are hard at work on another 20 that will come forward within the next two years, so we ran a double track. While we were trying to make these improvements to the Energy Efficiency Act itself, the regular work of improving the efficiency of the regulations and moving on to more stringent regulations just kept continuing. That work has kept pace regardless.
We weren't able to use the new amended features of the act, as they never got passed, but we have been able to use all of the existing features of the act to continue to improve the efficiency of products.
3:50 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
The government is preparing either those regulations or just the changes that you put earlier in the bill. We have seen the effect of unintended consequences when we improve an efficiency or we force a certain thing, and we then regulate a bunch of waste. Canadians then will discard one thing for another.
Does the government ever set up a complementary waste consideration when looking through to new products they're commanding? Product shifting goes on in the marketplace, regardless, because people want different TVs, radios, and computers. But I know that some companies are starting to engage more in the cradle-to-grave considerations, and Japan has always led the way.
Do we ever put an act like this together and at the same time say we have to reconsider any regulations or rules around the manufacturing process to consider the new waste that will be created by such an act? It is not intended, but it is an effect.
3:50 p.m.
Director, Equipment Division, Department of Natural Resources
We don't do so directly with respect to the regulations we bring in, because the regulations typically are targeted on replacement products. We don't encourage people to throw away TVs or whatever, but it can benefit people. Some consumers say they should get rid of an old fridge, for instance, because it's really old and really inefficient, and the regulations will help them choose a more efficient one.
In some of our voluntary programs, particularly the ones we mount in collaboration with utilities and similar agencies, we are very interested in seeing those kinds of implications, because we are trying to encourage people to get rid of those old fridges sooner. Largely programs like that will be mounted by the agencies on the ground in the provinces, such as the utilities. You'll notice that in Ontario and British Columbia, for instance, there are very successful and widespread fridge take-back programs, and that comes with a certain moral support, of course.
3:50 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Let me step to a bit of a tangential point, but an important one. Does the government ever consider trying to affect the manufacturing process? It is one thing to require a computer or a fridge to be more efficient, but there's a second addition that some countries have looked at. They are saying that when you're designing your manufacturing process, you also have to consider the moment when the product is no longer needed.
Although it's not so much the North American automakers as it is others, we've seen in the automobile sector that just the way they apply paint can make it easier when the car needs to be deconstructed and reused or reborn in some other form. Does the government ever go along those tracks at Natural Resources Canada? Do we ever say not only to make the device more efficient, but also to consider the overall waste impacts?
I'm a bit sorry to take us on this tangent, but...although you can make a fridge 10% more efficient, the actual overall net recovery time for the environment could be 15 years by the time you recoup--say, just on greenhouse gas emissions--the benefit of the more efficient fridge as opposed to holding onto the old one. Do you follow me?
I'm not explaining it in the proper terms. The waste component can't be forgotten. It's not simply about making a radio 10% more efficient if it doesn't affect the other side of the equation.
3:50 p.m.
Director, Equipment Division, Department of Natural Resources
The answer to your question is no, in terms of environmental producer responsibilities for products and total life cycle. There are other requirements out there, more so within the provincial realm because it is a shared jurisdiction and the provinces are more active. Ontario has embarked on a process right now, for instance, on producer responsibility and extending that.
3:50 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Yes, it's interesting. Perhaps for the committee's future consideration.... I know it's a shared jurisdiction, but because this bill deals with the importation and the cross-border element of products, that is a power the federal government has that Ontario doesn't. Well, it does, but not to the same effect.
I have a question around that, the government's capacity to actually block inefficient products from coming into the country. I don't see anything proposed in here around the levying of fines. What is the stick that's offered up if an importer starts to bring in products that fall below the standards the minister eventually sets?
3:55 p.m.
Director, Equipment Division, Department of Natural Resources
The provisions in the Energy Efficiency Act, with respect to contraventions of the requirements, are actually quite strong.
I think it's section 26, John. This is our legal counsel--
3:55 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Perhaps I can frame the question in a better way. Do you feel confident with the government's ability to apply the penalties required to actually meet the standards?
3:55 p.m.
Director, Equipment Division, Department of Natural Resources
Yes, I do. I think we probably have the strongest enforcement regime of any country that applies standards.
In response to the previous question, we talked about how we control the borders and our relationship with the Canada Border Services Agency. In Canada, every product or model of product that's imported must go through a process to indicate that it's compliant. We have extensive reporting, some of which is strengthened by the amendments we were talking about here today. We have third-party verification. As much as we're all familiar with electrical products, they are verified as being safe by the CSA or by UL. We have a similar kind of requirement with respect to energy efficiency. We have dedicated staff, whose principal function is to examine marketplaces. Those don't exist in other places.
3:55 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
I have one final, short question.
Again, I know there are not a lot of details around the standards you're actually going to apply. But there's been much made of the so-called “vulture electronics” or “predatory power” that's just drawn off the grid as components stay.
Has the ministry given any consideration to limits when setting these guidelines? Some of these power draws are incredible, particularly on the television side, but on some other products as well.
