Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources
Issue 2 - Evidence - March 10, 2009
OTTAWA, Tuesday, March 10, 2009
The Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources met this day at 6:19 p.m. to consider Bill S-3, An act to amend the Energy Efficiency Act.
Senator W. David Angus (Chair) presiding.
[Translation]
The Chair: Order. Good afternoon, everyone, and welcome to this meeting of the Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources. My name is David Angus. I am a senator from the beautiful province of Quebec and I also chair this committee.
[English]
I welcome all honourable senators and members of the public with us in the room and all viewers across the country that are watching on the facilities of CPAC and the World Wide Web.
I particularly want to welcome this evening our Minister of Natural Resources, the Honourable Lisa Raitt, who is here with the Deputy Minister of Natural Resources Canada, Cassie Doyle, and the Director of the Equipment Division, John Cockburn.
Our mandate on this committee is to examine legislation and matters relating to energy, the environment and natural resources generally. I take this opportunity to introduce my colleagues around the table today who are members of this committee. We have the deputy chair, Senator Grant Mitchell from Alberta; Senator Tommy Banks from Alberta; Senator Bert Brown from Alberta, our only elected senator; Senator Richard Neufeld from British Columbia, a past Minister of Natural Resources in British Columbia; Senator Daniel Lang from the Yukon Territory; Senator Elaine McCoy from Alberta; Senator Lorna Milne from Ontario, a member of our steering committee; Senator Mira Spivak from Manitoba; Senator Willie Adams from Nunavut; Senator Robert Peterson from Saskatchewan; and Senator Gerry St. Germain from British Columbia.
[Translation]
Tonight we are considering Bill S-3.
[English]
This bill amends the Energy Efficiency Act.
Senator Nick Sibbeston from the Northwest Territories has joined us.
This bill was introduced in the Senate and given first reading on January 29, 2009. Bill S-3 is identical to Bill S-4, which was introduced in the Second Session of the Thirty-ninth Parliament. That bill died on the Order Paper with the dissolution of the Thirty-ninth Parliament, and it was not reintroduced in the First Session of the Fortieth Parliament. This bill seeks to amend the Energy Efficiency Act to establish the power to regulate energy efficiency standards for classes of products that affect energy consumption and to enhance labelling requirements for consumer and commercial products.
In respect of our honourable minister, prior to her election to the House of Commons, the Honourable Ms. Raitt was the President and Chief Executive Officer of the Toronto Port Authority, TPA, and had previously served as the TPA's general counsel and harbourmaster. As a lawyer, she specialized in the areas of intellectual property, commercial litigation and shipping arbitration.
Thank you all for joining us this evening. I understand the minister has opening remarks. Copies have been circulated to everyone in both languages.
Another colleague has joined us, Senator Pana Merchant from Saskatchewan.
You have the floor, minister.
Hon. Lisa Raitt, P.C., M.P., Minister of Natural Resources: Thank you. I appreciate the warm introduction and thank you, honourable senators, for inviting me here today. It is a pleasure to appear before the committee for my first time. Please allow me to introduce Deputy Minister Cassie Doyle and John Cockburn who are accompanying me here today.
Honourable senators, we are all aware that these times are challenging for Canada and Canadians. We are facing the deepest global economic downturn in generations. Although Canada is in a much better position to weather this storm than many other nations, our economy is tied to the health of global markets. We cannot isolate ourselves from the impacts.
However, we can take action to protect Canadians from the worst of its impacts. We can take action that will stimulate our economy now. That action will also strengthen our nation's already strong economic fundamentals to ensure Canada is positioned for even greater prosperity in the future. This future prosperityis what the economic action plan for Canada set out in Budget 2009 will do.
Many of these same phrases can be applied to Bill S-3. Energy efficiency is probably the easiest, most affordable and most effective way for families and businesses alike to control energy costs and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Whether it is installing a programmable thermostat to turn the heat down when we are not at home or replacing an inefficient electric motor at the plant, we start saving right away — saving energy, saving money and saving the environment. Those benefits start right away and they continue to grow — month after month, year after year.
Energy efficiency also helps create and secure jobs for Canadians. Creating and securing jobs is a vital consideration at this time of economic uncertainty. As soon as we decide to improve the insulation in our homes, or install new, energy-efficient windows or doors, we are creating and protecting the jobs of the thousands of Canadians who perform that work and manufacture those products. That work includes the highly trained and skilled energy auditors and engineers who assess our energy use and give us the information we need to make the best choices for making our homes and buildings more efficient. Canadians understand energy efficiency.
The remarkable response to our government's ecoENERGY Retrofit home program is one example and a major reason the economic action plan includes $300 million to extend this program for another two years. This funding will allow an additional 200,000 homeowners to participate and to generate some $2.4 billion in economic activity.
In short, energy efficiency works and so does energy efficiency regulation. Household appliances are a good example. The first Energy Efficiency Act was introduced in 1992, with major appliances as a prime focus of the new legislation. Between 1990 and 2005, the use of major appliances in Canada went up by 38 per cent. During that same period, the total energy consumed by these appliances went down by 17 per cent.
Regulation works, but a lot has changed since the original act was introduced in 1992. Our knowledge base has expanded. New technologies have been developed. There have been big changes in the marketplace. Think of the number of energy-consuming gizmos in our homes today compared to 15 years ago. I know my seven-year-old and four-year-old seem to accumulate more than I have ever known in the past 10 years.
The bill gives the government the authority it needs to ensure that the Energy Efficiency Act continues to meet its obligations or its objectives with standards, regulations and labelling requirements that are in tune with today's marketplace and technological realities.
In fact, these amendments will make the Energy Efficiency Act itself more efficient. For example, it will be made clear in the act that standards can be prescribed that will apply to classes of products rather than individual products. This increased efficiency will reduce the time and effort it now takes to update regulations for individual products as they come on to the market.
It will also be important with respect to Canada's efforts to reduce the amount of standby power consumption by products such as televisions, microwaves, CD players, battery chargers, coffee makers and many others when they are not turned on but remain plugged in to an electrical source.
These amendments will also provide the authority to regulate products that affect or control energy consumption, including windows, doors and thermostats — not just products that consume energy themselves. Bill S-3 will allow improvements to the energy-rating labels that appear on products to ensure that Canadians have easy and comprehensive access to the necessary information to make smart choices when shopping for products that consume energy.
Honourable senators, when the Energy Efficiency Act was introduced in 1992, it broke new ground. It allowed Canada to set some of the highest standards for energy efficiency in the world. The amendments set out in Bill S-3 will ensure that our regulatory regime will continue to meet those high standards and that more of Canadians' money will stay where it belongs — in their pockets. Like energy efficiency, that is something I am sure we can all support. I thank honourable senators for this time, and I look forward to any questions you might have.
Senator Mitchell: Minister Raitt, it is an honour that your first appearance would be before our committee.
I spoke in support of this bill in the Senate but I must say that at times, when I support a Conservative bill, it comes back to bite me. However, this time I am sure that will not happen.
The bill's limited scope concerns me. Can you tell the committee what percentage of total Canadian carbon emissions will be subsumed in some way under the terms of this bill? The bill addresses the issue of carbon emissions. Your government announced two years ago, I believe, that it would move to a cap-and-trade system. Mr. Obama will definitely go to a cap-and-trade system. If we are not prepared, and there is not much evidence that your government is so prepared, then we will be at a huge disadvantage in dealing with the U.S., and we will miss the opportunity to build those markets here. Our companies might have to invest in the U.S. — all that money going to the States in order to meet cap and trade.
What measures is Natural Resources Canada taking to the extent that you have responsibility for the oil sands, as an example, with the huge issue against these unfair attacks of dirty oil? What will you do to develop caps in those companies and ensure that we will have an effective carbon market in Canada?
Senator Lang: In fairness to the minister, we are here to consider a bill that has been sent to us by the Senate. I submit that we are not on the topic, that we should be called to order and that we should deal with the issue at hand.
The Chair: Thank you for raising that point. I was thinking the same thing but, out of deference to my deputy chair, and given that he had not finished his question, I was about to nudge him. However, I think he will use his own good judgment now and take your wise remark into consideration.
Senator Mitchell: I am prepared to debate that with you afterwards. When you have been here for awhile you will find that happens often.
Senator Lang: Rest assured, I will be there to debate it.
Senator Mitchell: I would love to do that.
My first question was: What percentage of emissions does the scope of this bill account for? My second question was: Given that the bill does not deal with the broader problem, will the government introduce a bill to supplement Bill S-3 that will address caps and trading markets before we are at a disadvantage with respect to what President Obama will do in the U.S.?
Ms. Raitt: Senator, you asked about the percentage of total carbon emissions. This bill deals with the use of energy and not with the reduction of greenhouse gases, Gigs, except that the best reduction in Gigs comes from the conservation of energy. The energy that you do not use allows you to reduce the overall GIG emissions.
On the broader question, I am happy to talk about what our government's role is with respect to GIG emissions because we take it seriously. As you might know, our government has made a clear indication that we want to have 90 per cent of our electricity coming from non-emitting sources by 2020, which is a highly admirable standard. We are moving in that direction aggressively.
It is recognized and true that the change in administration in the United States brings challenges and opportunities. However, the opportunities are far greater than the challenges. A prime example is the successful visit of President Obama to meet our Prime Minister a number of weeks ago, and the opening of the clean energy dialogue between the two countries.
One key aspect of the clean energy dialogue was introduced in our economic action plan: $1 billion toward the clean energy fund, which will be administered through Natural Resources Canada.
Taking a look inside that fund, we want to ensure, in particular, that we mitigate the effect of fossil fuel use as well as ensure that we promote the use of renewable in order to reach overall 90 per cent emission-free electricity by 2020.
I too am concerned about the issue of mislabeling, or miss-framing, the concept of the oil sands, and I have some interesting statistics. It is clear that if we combine the total GIG emissions in Canada and the United States, the oil sands account for only .05 per cent of that total. However, recognizing that statistic, carbon capture and storage is an area in which Canada is a true world leader.
We have been aggressively following carbon capture and storage, CCS, and this government has funded both scientific and demonstration projects in CCS for a number of years. The clean energy fund will look to carry that forward as well. We are well placed vis-à-vis the United States. In terms of the challenges associated with regulations, by ensuring that we have technology in place and that we work together with our American friends, we will be able to address the overall issue of GIG emissions in North America.
Senator St. Germain: Congratulations, minister, you have a command performance. I have been to many committee meetings but I have not seen this many people at many of them. Whatever you are doing, keep doing it.
My question is simple. The government has introduced this bill through the Senate. Is the bill a duplication of a previous bill, or is it more symbolic than regulatory? Why do we need this proposed legislation in its current form?
Ms. Raitt: It is an update of the Energy Efficiency Act, ELEA. The amendments to the ELEA bring it up to date from 1992 to 2009. First, we want to clarify that a standard can be established for a class of product, not only for individual products, and that makes administration of the ELEA more productive and effective.
Second, we want to expand the scope of products that can be covered by authorizing the development of standards for products that affect energy use, not only those that use energy. Third, the amendments seek to control more closely interprovincial shipments once the standard is enacted. Fourth, we want more information to be included in energy-efficiency labelling. Fifth, we want clear authority within the ELEA for certain monitoring and enforcement components of the compliance regime. The ELEA would be updated and modernized in those five areas.
Senator St. Germain: In the spirit of hearing from everyone I will keep it short. I hope everyone remembers that.
The Chair: Minister Raitt, I understand that Bill S-3 is mainly a series of enabling provisions that provide the groundwork for the enactment of regulations. The substance will be reflected in those regulations that we do not see in the bill. We see only the power that this act will give you to enact regulations. Is that correct?
Ms. Raitt: Yes, Mr. Chair.
Senator Milne: Clause 6 of the bill says that every three years:
— the Minister must demonstrate the extent to which energy efficiency standards prescribed under this Act are as stringent as comparable standards established by a province, the United Mexican States, the United States of America or a state of the United States of America.
There must be other examples of countries that are doing a fine job in this respect. Why are we comparing ourselves only to these examples, and why are we allowing the United States to set the standards for us?
Ms. Raitt: I will defer to Mr. Cockburn, but I guess the provision focuses specifically on the jurisdictions in North America.
John Cockburn, Director, Equipment Division, Office of Energy Efficiency, Natural Resources Canada: That clause refers specifically to North America, meaning the United States of America and various states in the United States and Mexico, which are our major trading partners. The United States has an extremely aggressive and vigorous regulatory regime.
The United States is probably the only country in the world that is anywhere near equivalent to Canada in that regard for many commercial reasons. We have the same markets, the same manufacturers, the same lifestyles and whatnot. There are good reasons why our standards should be harmonized with theirs, and it is good fortune that they are as active as they are in this regard.
Senator Milne: Are you telling me that the American standards are higher than they are in Europe?
Mr. Cockburn: I am indeed.
Senator Milne: Minister, in your preamble, you spoke about the "highly trained and skilled energy auditors and engineers who assess our energy use." Can you tell us how many of these energy auditors that were hired under the original Liberal Energize program and who were let go by your government have been rehired and how much that has cost us? This question is a political one and I hope the minister will answer.
Cassie J. Doyle, Deputy Minister, Natural Resources Canada: I will provide some factual context. The energy auditors are not hired into Natural Resources Canada. They are hired through service organizations — small businesses or larger organizations like Sears Canada.
Senator Milne: Therefore, they are hired on contract and you should know how much the contracts cost.
The Chair: Senator, can we have the answer, and then you can continue?
Ms. Doyle: They continue to be spread across the country and working through small and medium-sized organizations. They never have been public servants or hired into Natural Resources Canada.
Senator Milne: They were fired by the government when the government changed from one system to another and then rehired, I understand, so how much has that firing and rehiring cost? It comes out of the public purse.
Ms. Doyle: There were no terminations of energy auditors from Natural Resources Canada.
Senator Milne: By or from?
Ms. Doyle: By or from.
The Chair: Someone is misinformed. Do you want to supplement that answer, minister, to please the senator?
Ms. Raitt: I am happy to answer the question. The energy auditors currently are under contract through service organizations. The role they fulfill now is through our successful ecoENERGY home retrofit program, which has had incredible uptake, specifically in Ontario where 57 per cent of home retrofits are taking place. The program is a popular one.
Indeed, that is why the government, in the Economic Action Plan, has expanded the program to include another 200,000 homes. Those energy auditors would be employed by them.
Further, when I held cross-country consultations with respect to the economic action plan, my colleagues in the various provinces liked the concept of having energy auditors. They thought it was helpful to be able to conduct the baseline audit of the house, and to have that laundry list of things that a homeowner can choose — a homeowner does not necessarily need to do everything at once. That concept was a benefit.
The home auditors are fulfilling a good role. In fact, the Ontario government has introduced the green energy act; and the government indicates in that act that they will make it mandatory for home audits to take place at point of sale. Again, they will use that concept.
Senator Milne: I am delighted that you agree with Ontario Premier McGivney. I congratulate you because this bill is a good one. I must tell you that children in this country are becoming conscious of the energy drawn by small appliances around the house. My own granddaughter unplugged her mother's refrigerator a month ago to ensure it was not drawing energy.
Ms. Raitt: That is a good one.
Senator Banks: Minister, automobiles are not included in this bill, as far as I can see. Do I have that wrong?
Ms. Raitt: That is correct; they are not included.
Senator Banks: It was brought to mind because you talked about California, for example, and the aggressive stance that some states — not only California, but California with respect, specifically, to automotive products — have taken. If we are to affect regulated products that use energy or affect energy use, automobiles are certainly one of them. Are they excluded from this concept for a reason?
Ms. Raitt: The Energy Efficiency Act is built upon the notion of appliances and of utilizing energy. The regulation of the utilization of energy with respect to automobiles would come through agreements we have on fuel consumption and standards associated with fuel consumption.
When the Canadian International Auto show took place recently in Toronto, NRCan had a booth there indicating which cars were the most fuel efficient and giving that kind of information to the consumer.
In one sense, the two are similar because in the Energy Efficiency Act, we seek to inform the consumer of what the relative standards are of energy efficiency and consumption. On the other side, in automobiles, we are doing the same thing and, in fact, giving awards when vehicles are more energy efficient. I had the honour of presenting awards to various automobile manufacturers.
I do not know if the department has anything to add on the issue.
Ms. Doyle: A stand-alone piece of legislation, the Motor Vehicle Fuel Consumption Standards Act, has that mandate; that is a federal act. Motor vehicles are not included under this Energy Efficiency Act.
Senator Banks: Have you given some thought to moving Canadian automotive products towards the standard of California, for example, as you have with the products in this bill? That is only a suggestion and a request.
Also, can you give us an example of a product that affects energy use, as opposed to uses energy? Finally, is the list of regulated products that we have in the briefing book a complete list? That is to say, should this list say, "including but not limited to," and are other things included? To use an absurd example, dehumidifiers on are on this list but humidifiers are not.
Ms. Raitt: I will defer to Mr. Cockburn on the last question because I do not know the details. However, with respect to the example of a device that affects energy use, my department has indicated a thermostat would be one such device.
Senator Banks: Understood; thank you.
Ms. Raitt: On the other aspect of whether the list is inclusive or exclusive, I will defer to Mr. Cockburn.
Mr. Cockburn: No, it does not include all products. The comments on the act so far tonight have indicated that the number of products that use energy in the home is growing. We are constantly revising, adding and updating standards on a continuous basis.
Senator Banks: As the regulations move along, they might be modified to accommodate some new piece of something.
Mr. Cockburn: Exactly, or a higher standard if the market moves.
Senator Banks: My colleagues will know that I hate framework legislation because ordinarily, I do not believe the regulations — the things they say will exist in the regulations when the rubber hits the road — do not now exist. Can you tell us that these regulations have yet to be drafted and that is why we will not look at them here and now?
Ms. Raitt: I need to ask the department where we are in the process of development of the regulations.
Mr. Cockburn: I can speak to that question. We mentioned that Canada is a significant regulator with energy efficiency standards. We have over 40 products covered by energy efficiency standards. We are currently working on a program for which we have proposed to implement standards for 20 new products and upgrade the standards for 10 existing products. That scenario changes constantly; we are adding products all the time.
This work is well underway. The first regulations were introduced in 1995 and since that time, we have had 10 amendments to those original regulations.
Senator Banks: Are those amendments attendant to this act?
Mr. Cockburn: They are attendant to the act that this bill proposes to amend.
Ms. Raitt: To respond to the question I missed when asked about fuel regulation, the deputy minister has pointed out to me that the government has committed to regulate fuel efficiency to the most stringent dominant standard in the United States. Fuel regulation is therefore a work-in-progress.
Senator Banks: That is good news. As Senator Milne said, this is a good bill. In some respects, it does not go as far as it might, but it is a good bill.
Senator Sibbeston: I come from a part of our country, the Northwest Territories, where people use wood to heat their homes. Currently, the act permits regulation of any "manufactured" product designed to operate using electricity, oil, natural gas or any other form of energy. The proposed amendments to this act will permit regulation of devices "that affect or control energy consumption."
Does this act or the amendments to the act permit the government to regulate the efficiency of home heating systems including wood burning and furnaces?
Ms. Raitt: I will defer to the department on the specifics.
Mr. Cockburn: There is no reason why we could not. They are energy using devices. They use another form of energy, namely wood. Therefore, it is possible to regulate a wood-burning appliance within the purview of this act.
Senator Sibbeston: In the last few decades, even in the area of wood stoves, we have come a long way —
Mr. Cockburn: We certainly have.
Senator Sibbeston: — in controlling them and making them more efficient. In all rural parts of the North, wood stoves are common. Therefore, anything that can be done to monitor them, make them more efficient and encourage efficiency would be good. I am glad they are included.
Senator McCoy: I have two questions. In your backgrounder, we have been given some details, but they are aggregate details. They talk about total energy savings and they also try to estimate greenhouse gas savings. Do you have the details?
I think I am probably addressing my comment to Mr. Cockburn if that is alright, minister. I want to see those details.
My second question goes back to a comment you made, minister. I am pleased to hear it. I am from Alberta. We are probably leading the country in carbon capture and storage, CCS, although my friends from Saskatchewan would severely criticize me for the claim. The federal government gave $250 million to SaskPower and has given nothing to Alberta yet to my knowledge. We contribute $2 billion in provincial money.
Ms. Doyle, you are a member of the Alberta Carbon Capture and Storage Development Council in our province. We hope to bring that issue forward. We have not been able to determine the details of the $1 billion in the Innovative Clean Energy Fund, minister. When you spoke to it, I was immediately cheered up.
Can you give me details about when that money will go out the door and what your plans are for it, in broad percentage terms? For example, how much will CCS development receive from that fund?
Ms. Raitt: I will start with the CCS question and will ask Mr. Cockburn to help on the second one.
The government's commitment to CCS starts before we get to the Innovative Clean Energy Fund. NRCan has been in a process since last summer with respect to a request for proposal, RFP for carbon capture and storage proposals. We are nearing the end of the process. Hopefully, in the coming weeks, we will be in a position to make announcements with respect to that portion under the ecoEnergy Technology Initiative, eco-ETI.
The Innovative Clean Energy Fund is meant for large-scale demonstration projects. We will determine the viable large-scale demonstration projects through discussions with Saskatchewan, Alberta and with the United States. There are not a large number of projects that you can come up with for that scale. We have a good sense as to the projects possible through the due diligence on the eco-ETI, and we will receive more information on the costs associated with the projects. They are not inexpensive. That is why $1 billion has been set aside in this Innovative Clean Energy Fund with a focus on carbon capture and storage.
Senator McCoy: I am pleased to hear that. As I understand it, about six projects on the short list are being reviewed to be the successful demonstration project. However, I assume it will be some months before that $1 billion of stimulus money is out the door, not that I am complaining. I support the initiative and I support the energy efficiency initiative as well. We have been active in that initiative through Climate Change Central. I am the vice-chair and founder of that organization. I am happy if you simply undertake to send me the details, Mr. Cockburn.
Mr. Cockburn: We can fill you up; there is no doubt about that.
Ms. Doyle: I will clarify that the RFP the minister referred to is an NRCan RFP for CCS projects. The proposals are investments in the front-end engineering design work. Those projects will be announced in the next couple weeks.
Senator McCoy: Are they the ones in which you are participating in Alberta?
Ms. Doyle: That is right.
Senator McCoy: That is even better news. How much money is attached to that RFP?
Ms. Doyle: It is about $150 million. That RFP was under eco-ETI.
Senator McCoy: That is good news. I did not know that. Thank you for that additional information.
Senator Lang: I have one question, minister. I understand there will be changes to the Energize labelling system in the bill. Perhaps you can describe that system to us.
Mr. Cockburn: There is not a lot of detail in the bill itself. As Senator Angus mentioned, the bill provides the power to do things; it is enabling legislation. Currently, as written in the Energy Efficiency Act, there are constraints on how labelling can be conducted. The current act allows us to prescribe the form and manner for an energy efficiency label, but it does not specifically give us the right to prescribe what is on the label. We thought labelling could be improved upon and that is what this bill purports to do.
To give you a concrete example, we are trying to implement labelling for light bulbs. There has been discussion in the legal community as to whether the existing legislation will allow us to put the length of time the light bulb will operate on the label because length of time in operation is not directly energy-related. This bill will allow us to put that information on the light bulb packaging so people can make better choices about light bulbs.
Senator Adams: I have seen many changes. Will changes be made to the electrical code, which means that plants will have to change their electrical systems? How will that work? People will want to buy things that will save energy, even though they might not be made in Canada. Once the bill is passed, will people be informed of the best products to buy in order to save energy? Will there be a policy to tell consumers what products are good? Will some products be abolished because they are not energy efficient? In Europe, everything runs on 220 volts, which saves power. I live in Nunavut where we pay 50 cents per kilowatt hour. As Senator Banks mentioned earlier, the RCMP up there have to run trucks and vans 24 hours per day in the wintertime because if they shut them off for two hours, they have to give them a boost to start them again.
Some block heaters use only 500 watts but these block heaters do not have enough power for vehicles in the Arctic. We have to use block heaters that use 1500 watts to keep the engine warm. We should look at how the system will work in terms of everything and everywhere. When I was contracting, the electrical panel in my house was only 60 amps. Now, it has 200 amps. How many appliances and what kinds do you use throughout the year? Electric motors lose a lot of power but a 220-volt system uses less than half the power. We should look at all these things in terms of policy for saving energy.
The Chair: You have raised some of the concerns for those living in the North.
Senator Adams: Yes, if we are to save energy, we cannot use the same kinds of light bulbs and appliances and maybe even the same kind of electrical system. All these things should be considered.
Ms. Raitt: I am grateful for the feedback, senator. One challenge in delivering energy efficiency in the North is brought to my attention often by Minister Aglukkaq who represents Nunavut. She constantly reminds me that when communities are completely dependent upon diesel, it is important to ensure that we take all actions and steps possible not only to help on the renewable side but also on the energy-efficiency side. We have our challenges on energy efficiency, returning to the point of energy auditors, with respect to having energy audits performed in that area. I am grateful for your comments and your point of view because it is helpful to remember that the North is a unique place in which to make applicable the broader hopes on energy efficiency.
The Chair: Minister, if you talk to Senator Adams long enough, you will want to move to Rankin Inlet. He has captivated us all over the years.
Senator Peterson: Does NRCan play any role in the use of ethanol in gasoline?
Ms. Raitt: Yes; I will ask Ms. Doyle to speak generally about our role in ethanol.
Ms. Doyle: We administer an ethanol production incentive aimed at increasing the level of ethanol produced in Canada through financial incentive to the manufacturers of ethanol.
Senator Peterson: You made a comment earlier about being emission-free by 2020. Does that goal include power generating facilities using fossil fuels and coal?
Ms. Raitt: Yes, it does.
Senator Peterson: Do you think you can achieve that goal without nuclear power?
Ms. Raitt: No; in the Speech from the Throne, it was made clear that nuclear power is part of the mix in achieving non-emitting electricity by 2020. It is highly desirous not only to mitigate the fossil fuels but also to ensure that we have more renewable and non-emitting sources of electricity. Canada is blessed with a great abundance of hydro and with nuclear power, which generates 50 per cent of the electricity in Ontario. Those two factors help us to move along to an aggressive but achievable goal of 90 per cent.
Senator Peterson: Lead time on new construction is 12 to 15 years so I presume this plan is underway to achieve the goal by that date.
Ms. Raitt: Indeed; for example, the Government of Ontario is in the process of evaluating bids for building new nuclear facilities. The Province of New Brunswick has expressed an interest in building a second plant at Point Lepreau. If you believe the worldwide sources, we are in a nuclear renaissance, and Saskatchewan reminds me that they are well placed in terms of having the richest uranium deposit in the world.
Senator Neufeld: I am interested in a number of things. Everyone seems to be so in favour of the bill that we are talking more about other things than we are about the bill, and that is good.
What kind of unregulated products are there that you are trying to capture? For example, light bulbs come to mind. Some places have banned incandescent light bulbs. In the regulations, is there any thought to moving to compact fluorescent light bulbs, CFL, rather than incandescent ones? You talked about adopting policies from the U.S. Are you in favour of adopting California tailpipe standards, such as British Columbia and a number of other states and provinces, other than Ontario, have adopted?
I am interested in carbon capture and storage. The single largest point source of one million tonnes per year is from a plant in Fort Nelson owned by Spectra Energy. Similar to what Alberta has done, the Province of British Columbia funded Spectra Energy a year ago to advance carbon capture and storage. They are starting to do a fair amount of work on CCS.
If it works, it will be the largest single point of carbon capture storage in the world — not in gross but the largest single point. That becomes a reality. Perhaps you would respond to some of those statements.
When you talk about 90 per cent clean electricity by 2020, we have already eclipsed that; we are at about 93 per cent in British Columbia.
Ms. Raitt: B.C. is good.
Senator Neufeld: We accomplished it without nuclear power.
Ms. Raitt: You are blessed with a lot of hydro.
On the products regulator, I will ask Mr. Cockburn to address your question; and the deputy minister will talk about the California tailpipe standards.
On CCS, I will deliver the good news. We too are excited about what is happening at Spectra and we hope, in the near future, we will be able to make announcements with respect to government participation from the federal level in that project.
Ms. Doyle: I will comment on the question around vehicle fuel efficiency. As the minister mentioned, the government has made a commitment to regulate according to the dominant, most stringent standard in the U.S., given how highly integrated our markets are for automobiles and vehicles. It is not yet clear what will be the most dominant standard, given how early this U.S. administration is in its mandate. We are watching carefully the change with the waiver provided to California and two other states.
Where the dominant standard will end up is not clear yet. We are watching that carefully now, but there has not been a decision on that front.
Mr. Cockburn: On the standards front, you asked specifically about light bulbs. The government approved a standard to come in effect in 2012 for light bulbs. It does not ban incandescents; it is a performance standard that will probably eliminate most of the current incandescents out there. There are some qualifying incandescents of a halogen brand.
Of the next new products that we are looking at, from our analysis of the areas for which there is significant regulatory potential, lighting is one — commercial lighting, outdoor lighting, et cetera — that seems to be a high priority area.
Consumer electronics is another. There is something that we all know and love called a television out there, for which there is no energy efficiency standard in Canada yet — or anywhere in the world; that priority has to move up. That should change because some reports indicate that a couple of TVs and a set box on top of them are the equivalent of running two old refrigerators in your house. That is a big kilowatt-per-hour item, which is something we will look at specifically.
Commercial heating is another area that is largely unregulated. In our initial look, that area seems to be one where we can make regulatory changes and market transformation activities first to improve that.
Senator Spivak: I think it is safe to say that this bill is widely supported. However, there are relevant questions to be asked about the detail.
I listened last night to the energy secretary in the United States, Steven Chu. He seemed to think the American standards have a lot of room for improvement. He talked about the fact that they will address building infrastructure aggressively and I presume, within that, the other areas in the buildings. That area is his main priority.
I am not sure that I caught it correctly, but he seemed to think that within a certain period of time, they can reduce the amount of greenhouse gases coming from that source by something like 80 per cent. I may have gotten that wrong.
In your introduction, you said that the objective of energy efficiency is not only to save money, but to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Following up on the question from my esteemed colleague, what percentage of greenhouse gas emissions is produced by infrastructure, and how much do you expect to reduce those emissions, given this bill? If that question is impossible to answer now, I am happy to have you give me a written estimation.
It seems to me greenhouse gas emissions is the whole issue. If we pass this bill and it reduces emissions only by 10 per cent or whatever, in a total energy policy, we have to make it up somewhere else. However, if, as Mr. Chu seemed to indicate, infrastructure is a huge place to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, how are we doing compared to what he proposes?
I want to make one comment. CCS is not the silver bullet that everyone thinks it is. CCS is one part of the equation but a lot of things can happen with CCS.
Ms. Raitt: I appreciate that, thank you. As you know, senator, the Gigs that will be saved are found in the conservation of the electricity within the consumption, in a lot of cases. On the specifics, I am sure a lot of different details go into the analysis in trying to figure out how much GIG specifically would be reduced. However, I think whatever we can do to be more energy-efficient is helpful, including in terms of measurement.
Bringing in regulation, and bringing awareness to people makes people more choosey. Indeed, one thing that gave me great heart, which Senator Milne mentioned as well, is that Canadians are getting it in terms of energy efficiency now. Statistics Canada, in January, indicated that more Canadians than ever are embracing energy efficiency things like light bulbs, and looking at those kinds of products. I think we are ahead of the United States in that sense.
However, in terms of the fuller information —
Senator Spivak: I am sorry to interrupt but my first question was, what proportion of greenhouse gas emissions are produced by infrastructure? The second question was, what will this bill do in terms of reducing these emissions?
Mr. Cockburn: I cannot give you a number right now, but I know the numbers exist. We will be happy to send them to you.
I am sure everyone around the table has seen the pie charts, which talk about industrial, commercial, residential and transportation. We will happily go back and provide you with those pie charts. You can do the math and see how much moves and does not move, and how much greenhouse gases are associated with that.
On the industrial side of things, a regulatory regime is coming down the track, so there will be something else there.
You mentioned Senator Chu's estimate of the commercial buildings.
Senator Spivak: Not senator; he is the energy secretary. Maybe he would like to be a senator, who knows?
Mr. Cockburn: Secretary Chu mentioned commercial buildings. The National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy has recently issued a report that will, I think, confirm his view that there is a lot of potential there. We can seriously reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the commercial sector by doing a lot of the things we are doing now.
Senator Spivak: I will ask a stupid question. Does this bill cover industrial as well as residential energy use?
Mr. Cockburn: This bill covers products. You have to cross a border, either a provincial or an international border, for it to be subject to the requirements of the act.
Senator Brown: Minister, I think as well that you have a good bill. Does your department have plans to promote reduced consumption of energy?
I recently read statistics where Dow Chemical saved $7 billion with management of their existing facilities over a long period of time. As another example, when cities expand light rail transit, it costs hundreds of millions of dollars whereas each bus they buy is available quickly from manufacturers and one bus takes 40 cars off the road.
I also learned that the United States supposedly can save 1.3 billion tonnes of CO2 emissions with existing technology. That saving is without pursuing new technology, but by simply managing the technology they already have.
Finally, I understand that buildings, not cars, are by far the largest consumers of energy, both industrial buildings and homes.
I hope your department will look at a program to promote less consumption of energy.
Ms. Raitt: Thank you for the comments.
The Chair: Minister, I have a couple of other people. I know that you said you had an hour. Do you have a few more minutes?
Ms. Raitt: I have five minutes. Are they nodding behind me or not?
The Chair: They are saying that you are doing a great job and we are agreeing.
Senator Merchant: You said something about crossing international borders. Do these regulations also apply to the products that we export?
Mr. Cockburn: No.
The Chair: People from your department came to the committee to introduce the committee to an interesting subject called user fees under explosives. You may not be familiar with the issue and if you are not, I will not ask you any questions. However, we were asked to approve user fees for the explosives industry. All user fees now, in any sector, need to be under the User Fees Act and submitted to Parliament within a certain period of time. Your people came and edified us. I wondered if you knew anything about that subject.
Ms. Raitt: No.
Ms. Doyle: Yes, I am familiar with it.
The Chair: It is not of such a high profile?
Ms. Doyle: We have not had a chance yet to brief the minister on user fees.
The Chair: That is fine. We have been comfortable with the evidence. We are preparing our report and I thought there might be a pungent comment from the minister.
Ms. Raitt: Here's the comment. I will be getting a briefing on this issue after the question. We will talk about it in the cab on the way back to the Hill.
Senator Mitchell: Thank you all for coming here. I have been to many committee meetings and I can tell that people have been pleased with this give and take. I do not want to be patronizing in the least, but I want to acknowledge that I do not know if I have ever been at any meeting where we have been addressed by a deputy minister and a cabinet minister who are both women. It is evidence that real progress is being made.
I want to say that the answers were very able. You gave me an answer on cap and trade that was able, but did not address my point. Maybe it was the nature of my question, but I want to make this point and leave it with you. I and many of us are concerned about carbon and about what will happen if we are not ready for measures they will take in the U.S. Apart from your answer, I fear and sense that no real preparation is being made. I had two large Alberta final emitters meet with me last week. Neither has been approached for caps or for the development of offset markets or credits. If I were you, as a minister, it is a wonderful opportunity to do something significant for this country, for our families and for the future, and I encourage you to take that initiative.
Ms. Raitt: Thank you.
The Chair: I want to thank you as well, minister, and your colleagues. It has been a useful hearing. I want to advise you that we will consider the bill, clause-by-clause, immediately if everyone is comfortable with that consideration. There seems to be general approbation of your bill. Thank you.
Some of you have done clause-by-clause consideration before and you know what it is. It is the final process leading up to our returning the bill to the Senate, either amended or unamended. For the new people, interesting information has been provided by the clerk. I will not read it all into the record, but the clerk will send it to the offices of new senators. It gives a sense of the process to amend a bill. It would be more relevant if we had a controversial piece of legislation to which we were making amendments.
I will proceed in the normal way. Do I have general agreement to proceed to clause-by-clause consideration?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: I see general agreement. It is carried that we move to clause-by-clause consideration of Bill S-3, an Act to amend the Energy Efficiency Act.
Shall the title stand postponed? All in favour?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
Shall the preamble stand postponed? All in favour?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
Shall clause 1 carry? All in favour?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
Shall clause 2 carry? All in favour?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
Shall clause 3 carry? All in favour?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
Shall clause 4 carry? All in favour?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
Shall clause 5 carry? All in favour?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
Shall clause 6 carry? All in favour?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
Shall clause 7 carry? All in favour?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
Shall clause 8 carry? All in favour?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
Shall the preamble carry? All in favour?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
Shall the title carry? All in favour?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
Shall the bill carry? All in favour?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
Shall I report the bill to the Senate unamended? All in favour?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: The bill has carried unanimously and will be reported unamended to the Senate. This bill is the first bill of this new committee. Congratulations. Good job.
I seek guidance on one item. We circulated a draft report on user fees. I have not had any feedback but it might be early days yet. I am open to jazzing it up a bit. If anyone has suggestions, send an email or call the clerk. I will work on it tomorrow and put it to you on Thursday morning so we can complete it then. You will notice that I asked the minister if she had anything. Is there any other business? Seeing none, we stand adjourned.
(The committee adjourned.)