THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON ENERGY, THE ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Tuesday, May 26, 2026
The Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources met with videoconference this day at 6:31 p.m. [ET] to consider Bill S-4, An Act to amend the Energy Efficiency Act; and, in camera, to consider Bill S-4, An Act to amend the Energy Efficiency Act.
Senator Joan Kingston (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Good evening, everyone. I would begin by asking all senators to consult the cards on their tables with the guidelines to prevent audio feedback. I’d also like to acknowledge that our work in Ottawa takes place on the traditional, unceded territory of the Anishinaabe Algonquin Nation. The Algonquin People have lived on this land since time immemorial. We are grateful to have the opportunity to be present in this territory.
My name is Joan Kingston; I’m a senator from New Brunswick, and I’m the chairperson of the Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources.
We’re back again for clause-by-clause consideration of Bill S-4.
Today, pursuant to the order of reference received from the Senate on March 11, 2026, we are pursuing our study of Bill S-4, An Act to amend the Energy Efficiency Act.
We will now continue the clause-by-clause consideration. I’d like to welcome the officials from Natural Resources Canada who are with us in the room today and available to answer any technical questions if necessary. We have Jean-François Roman, who has been here before. I’d like to welcome Jamie Hulan. He’s here for the first time, and Ben Copp has been here before as well. Thank you for coming back to help us out.
Before we begin, I would like to remind senators of a number of points. As chair, I will call each clause successively in the order they appear in the bill. If, at any point, a senator is not clear where we are in the process, please ask for clarification. I want to ensure that, at all times, we all have the same understanding of where we are in the process. In terms of the mechanics of the process, when more than one amendment is proposed to be moved in a clause, amendments should be proposed in the order of lines of a clause.
If a senator is opposed to an entire clause, the proper process is not to move a motion to delete the entire clause but rather to vote against the clause as standing as part of the bill.
Some amendments that are moved may have consequential effects on other parts of the bill. It is, therefore, useful to this process if a senator moving an amendment identifies to the committee other clauses in the bill where this amendment could have an effect. Otherwise, it would be difficult for members of the committee to remain consistent in their decision-making.
Because no notice is required to move amendments, there can, of course, have been no preliminary analysis of the amendments to establish which one or ones may be of consequence to others and which may be contradictory.
If committee members ever have any questions about the process or about the propriety of anything occurring, they can certainly raise a point of order. As the chair I will listen to the argument, decide when there has been sufficient discussion of a matter or point of order, and make a ruling. The committee is the ultimate master of its business within the bounds established by the Senate, and a ruling can be appealed to the full committee by asking whether the ruling shall be sustained.
I wish to remind honourable senators that if there is any uncertainty as to the results of a voice vote or a show of hands, the more effective route is to request a roll call vote, which obviously provides an unambiguous result. Finally, senators are aware that any tie vote negates the motion in question.
Are there any questions about the above? If not, we can proceed.
Our last meeting was adjourned while we were considering article 25.
Senator D. M. Wells: You are saying we were considering article 25. Can you tell me the last clause we approved? Will we start there or is there an article 25?
The Chair: It was negated.
Senator D. M. Wells: Was it clause 25 or article 25? You said article 25, and I don’t know where that is.
The Chair: You’re right. Our last meeting was adjourned while we were considering article 25. The amendment from Senator Fridhandler was rejected.
Senator D. M. Wells: We are talking about clause 25; is that correct?
The Chair: That is not what is written here.
Senator D. M. Wells: I’m trying to find out where we are.
The Chair: You’re right, Senator Wells, as usual. It’s clause 25.
Senator D. M. Wells: I don’t think we finished with clause 25.
The Chair: It was the amendment that was discussed.
Senator D. M. Wells: Yes, okay. My question is what was the last clause we finished with, which was clause 24. I assume that’s correct.
The Chair: Yes.
Senator D. M. Wells: Thank you.
The Chair: I will give the floor to Senator Coyle.
Senator Coyle: Thank you. Madam Chair and colleagues, I would like to move a motion under rule 10-5, to reconsider clauses 18 and 19, as amended. Should I go on?
The Chair: You should because what we are considering is, I believe, (a) of each of those.
Senator Coyle: Yes, each of those. I amended them already, and I want to amend them further. Should I proceed?
The Chair: Yes, you should proceed with your motion.
Senator Coyle: I’ll put the motion out there. I would like to move a motion under rule 10-5 to reconsider clauses 18 and 19, as amended. I will get into it if the motion is approved.
The Chair: Do we approve of the motion to reconsider?
Senator D. M. Wells: I really want to be clear because this is unexpected. Senator Coyle, you want to revert to clauses 18 and 19 to do what?
Senator Coyle: To reconsider clauses 18 and 19, as amended, because we passed the amendments to those.
Senator D. M. Wells: Could we know what the reconsideration would be before we make a decision on whether we revert?
Senator Coyle: We could.
Senator D. M. Wells: That is what I would like to do.
Senator Coyle: No problem. I would like to make a simple change to the clauses, replacing the words “and” in both clauses with “or” to ensure that there is flexibility, which is something we talked about last time, within the text of the bill to include both renewable and emerging types of energy. Clause 18 will read: “Bill S-4 be amended in clause 18 as agreed to by the Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources, on May 7, 2026, by replacing the words ”renewable and“ with the words ”renewable or“. So you have ”or“ instead of “and” in both of those.
Senator D. M. Wells: What effect would this have?
Senator Coyle: Really, it’s looking to the original intention. It doesn’t harm the original intention approved by this committee, which was to add the word “renewable.” you will remember that, because we wanted to distinguish the word “renewable” from emerging energies, right? This replacing “and” with “or” is so that it doesn’t look prescriptive and it gives more flexibility. So that is the reasoning.
Senator D. M. Wells: That’s for clause 18?
Senator Coyle: Eighteen and 19.
The Chair: There is a motion to talk about this, which we just talked about. Do we have an agreement to talk to —
Senator Coyle: To reconsider the clauses.
The Chair: Yes, for these two climate changes.
Senator Coyle: This is just an approval of my motion to reconsider.
The Chair: So there is a motion on the floor to reconsider 18 and 19, and they will be called, if you so wish, 18(a) and 19(a).
Senator D. M. Wells: I have no problem reverting to 18 and 19 with those provisions.
The Chair: All in favour.
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: So the motion is agreed to.
Senator Coyle: Now that the motion has been approved is that I move that Bill S-4 be amended in clause 18, as agreed to by the Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources, on May 17, 2026, by replacing the words “renewable and” with the words “renewable or.”
That’s one motion, and I have one more.
The Chair: All right. It is moved by the Honourable Senator Coyle that what she has just said be amended. Is it your pleasure to adopt the amendment?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: So shall clause 18 be amended and carried?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Okay.
Senator Coyle: I move that Bill S-4 be amended in clause 19, as agreed to by the Senate Standing Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources on May 7, 2026, by replacing the words “renewable and” with the words “renewable or.”
The Chair: So, Senator Coyle has moved. Are honourable senators ready for the question? All in favour.
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: I declare the amendment carried. Shall clause 19, as amended, be carried?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Now we are at clause 25, and the amendment was not carried. So we are going to ask, and I think we should read it again, probably —
Senator Coyle: Thank you, Madam Chair. I have another amendment, and this is now to clause 25, page 30. That Bill S-4 be amended in clause 25 on page 30, by replacing lines 26 to 29 with the following:
Tent to which selected energy efficiency standards prescribed under this Act are as stringent as comparable standards. Those comparable standards can be established by a province, the United Mexican States, the United States, or any other national or subnational jurisdiction.
The Chair: Do we have a paper copy? That is quite a few words.
Senator Coyle: You didn’t get it?
Catherine Cuerrier, Clerk of the Committee, Senate of Canada: No.
Senator D. M. Wells: I know the intent is to do these in sequence, and I know this is clause 25, page 30. Is this number 58?
Senator Galvez: No, you don’t have it, it is 26, it’s a new one.
The Chair: It’s MC-S425-30-26.
Senator D. M. Wells: It comes before the amendment I’m proposing, and I want to make sure —
Senator Coyle: I believe it does.
Senator D. M. Wells: It looks like it does. Mine is replacing lines 30 to 33, so that is after yours. Thank you, chair.
The Chair: Thank you, and you’re right, so MC-S425-30-26, replacing lines 26 to 29.
Senator Coyle: Shall I explain?
[Translation]
Senator Aucoin: Madam Chair, could I have some clarification? Where is this found in the French version?
The Chair: In the French version?
Senator Aucoin: Because she said that it was on page 30.
The Chair: Sorry. It’s on page 30, by replacing lines 24 to 29 . . . .
Have you found it? Senator Coyle can read it in French.
Senator Aucoin: It’s paragraph 56 or 57, right? Just to clarify.
The Chair: We’re talking about clause 25, page 30, by replacing —
Can you read it?
Senator Coyle: Yes.
That Bill S-4 be amended in clause 25 on page 30, by replacing lines 24 to 29 with the following:
I’ll wait.
[English]
Senator Galvez: I think, in the French version, it’s not on the same page.
[Translation]
The Chair: No, that’s right. It’s on another page. No, these are other lines. Just a moment.
Is it clearer now?
[English]
Senator Fridhandler: I wanted to understand the intent because the substantive part added is, “or any other national or sub-national jurisdiction.” So there are two issues there: whether the intent is that someone has to do a global study, and it doesn’t say every other, it says “any other.” I would be willing to capitulate that maybe it means that you can go pick and choose other comparables that you might be interested in. I just want to clarify the intent of the amendment.
Senator Coyle: I haven’t gotten around to explaining the rationale. You would like the rationale?
Senator Fridhandler: Not the rationale, the intent. I just want to know what you want.
Do you want the minister to file a report that deals with comparable standards globally and in subnational jurisdictions globally? It doesn’t say “every”; it says, “any.” Or does the minister get to pick and choose, because “any” means whatever you want, any that you want to pick as comparable?
Senator Coyle: What I’m trying to do is expand the options for comparable standards.
Senator Fridhandler: In a discretionary way?
Senator Coyle: Well, it says those comparable standards can be established by a province, the United Mexican States, the United States or any other national or subnational jurisdiction.
The rationale, then, is that a broader comparison of international standards coincides with the amended act’s purpose to foster international and interprovincial trade and commerce and to diversify Canada’s relationships outside of North America towards other top export partners.
States such as California, for example, have traditionally pioneered the development of higher performance standards, and Canada has aligned with them. For example, Amendment 18 to the Energy Efficiency Regulations harmonized with California’s standards for showerhead and faucet efficiency. This is to give that flexibility to compare not just to the U.S. but to the U.S. and other sub jurisdictions or other national jurisdictions. That’s what it’s about.
For example, emerging competitors and potential trading partners, such as China and the European Union, have implemented more stringent standards than Canada in areas such as electric motor systems, despite Canadian companies innovating and patenting in this area.
I could go on and on, but there is a rationale there to give the option of more comparable standards than what was in the original legislation to include, as I said, beyond the United Mexican States and the United States to add those other national or subnational jurisdictions. We’re not saying which ones but just those that make sense.
Senator Dean: Can we get the perspective of officials on this proposal, please?
Ben Copp, Director General, Office of Energy Efficiency, Natural Resources Canada: Thank you for the question, senator.
We talked previously about the work that we do with our regulatory process and that, as we do every amendment package and regulations, we are looking at other jurisdictions in terms of comparison.
Certainly, with regard to our major trading partners — the U.S. and Mexico — that has been traditionally where we looked at comparisons, and I think the amendment, as proposed, would give us the opportunity to look beyond that for comparisons, where it makes sense, so yes. Thank you.
The Chair: Is there other discussion?
Senator Fridhandler, have you heard what you wanted to hear?
Senator Fridhandler: I’ve heard what I need to hear.
The Chair: Other discussion? Are you ready for the question?
All in favour?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Contrary-minded?
The amendment passes.
Now, we go back to clause 25 itself.
Senator D. M. Wells: Thank you, colleagues.
I’m going to propose an amendment on clause 25, page 30. It would be under 58(1).
The intent of the amendment is that, right now in the proposed legislation, it has parliamentary review every ten years. My view is that ten years is a long time for something that touches so close to the businesses of Canada, and that is the addition of commercial entities to this legislation, which wasn’t there before. It was retailers, wholesalers, onward sellers and importers. Now, it has commercial entities, which are the users.
I think something that touches so closely to the users should have a parliamentary review a lot shorter than ten years. There will be virtually no institutional memory in the House after ten years and probably not a whole lot here. I won’t be here.
Anything to diminish parliamentary oversight and review is a negative; anything that increases it is a positive. Even at this committee, colleagues, we hear from the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development a number of times a year on a number of topics — more than yearly but regularly.
In my discussions with the sponsor — and I as the critic — there was discussion or some note about how it would take that long for any effect to take effect — any effect of the legislation.
I’ll ask the officials this: Would that include the length of time that it takes to get it through the regulations? I know we don’t know how long it will take on this, but how long is typical for regulations to go through the regulatory process after Royal Assent?
Mr. Copp: Thank you for the question, senator.
The normal regulatory process is around two years, and that includes consultations that we do both pre-gazette and after the first gazette.
We would envision something similar after Royal Assent of the amended act. It could take up to a couple of years, at least, for the first regulations to come through, and that wouldn’t be regulations on all aspects or all amendments in the bill.
Our view is that having ten years as the initial period would allow the changes with regard to the amended bill and regulations to be assessed. Then, after those first ten years, it would be every five years after that.
Senator D. M. Wells: I understand that. Because this is, obviously, new to the business community. One thing that I know the business community likes is to be overregulated, and if Parliament has oversight over that, I think more oversight is better than less oversight.
I also recognize the time it takes to put regulations in effect, and if it’s two years, that would make — if I were to propose a five-year parliamentary review, that would only give, probably, three years of effect that Parliament would look at.
I don’t think that is onerous at all. If there are going to be changes in labelling requirements, I would want to know that earlier rather than later.
Colleagues will recall when the minister was here — and we asked this specific question — he wasn’t sure why it was being done for ten years. In fact, he reached out to officials. For me, anyway, there was no clear rationale for waiting ten years, which is likely eight years after it would come into effect. The first review would be done on something brand-new to industry or commercial entities, which is what the change is in the legislation.
The parliamentary review could be something as simple as a report submitted by the department on how the effect has taken place and what changes and what complaints have happened and whatever else is included in a parliamentary review. It might be one committee meeting, like we do with the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development on certain topics, or it could be something more in depth, based on what Parliament wants to hear.
I don’t think waiting ten years or eight years after the regulations are in place — let me phrase it this way: I don’t think three years or five years is onerous for the department to provide that feedback to Parliament. I’m happy to have a discussion about that, or I am happy to propose my amendment.
Senator Wilson: If Senator Wells wants to propose his amendment, I had a question of the officials to build on Senator Wells’ questions, but that can wait.
Senator D. M. Wells: That might inform my amendment.
Senator Wilson: My question to the officials, building on Senator Wells’ line of questioning, what has been the experience with the existing Energy Efficiency Act in its current form over its long history? What has been the practice in the past? How does that inform how we might want to move forward in the future? Because if you are doing it every five years after you get to the 10-year mark, I think it is a legitimate line of questioning. I am curious to understand what your experience has been.
Jamie Hulan, Senior Director, Equipment and Housing, Office of Energy Efficiency, Natural Resources Canada: Thanks for your question.
Since the act has not been amended to this extent since it was originally passed — we set up originally back in the 1990s a robust system that worked very well for a number of years. I think there was a steadiness to our approach to regulating. The fact that there wasn’t a statutory review timeline did not seem like a gap in our ability to deliver.
What we’ve noticed in recent years is that markets have been changing dramatically and leading to new challenges. That, in and of itself, was a lot of the thrust behind discussions about new authorities under the act that could help continue to drive energy efficiency.
The experience under the current act has been one of stability. Now, at this point, I think we need authorities to be able to put in place the regulations and, as my colleague said, time to evaluate what the impacts of those would be. There is no real precedent for us to look back on in terms of a statutory review of the act.
Senator Wilson: A bit further to Senator Wells’ line of questioning, if we fast-forward two years, assuming all the regulations are in place, what does the runway look like to start actually getting quality data back to understand how it’s working and how effective it is so that it would be a useful exercise to go through a statutory review?
Mr. Hulan: As data gets collected, the fact that the regulation would be in place doesn’t immediately give us access to the information. We would have to set up the systems to collect the information, so there would be time associated with all of those steps in order to see trends or to understand what is happening. I think regulated parties would tell us if there were something that was potentially going amiss. Two years to develop the regulation, I would think another year to make sure that we’re collecting the data and then to understand trends that could extend beyond that in terms of understanding what is happening and whether there is a need for change.
Senator Wilson: Thank you.
Senator D. M. Wells: To build on what Senator Wilson said, the significant piece that I’m focusing on that has changed in the legislation is the addition of commercial entities. Wholesalers, importers and retailers are already familiar with this. They’ve been doing it and acting under the legislation that’s in place. The piece that has been added is the commercial entities, and we had quite a long discussion about why the commercial entities are at play.
If a commercial entity, which is a business that is using or shipping — not necessarily even selling — a piece of equipment across a border, if there seems to be a deleterious issue with this new thing that is happening to commercial entities, the answer to them would be, “Don’t worry, we have a statutory review in eight years; we’ll address it then.” I don’t think that’s fair to the commercial entities that are operating in Canada. I don’t think that’s an acceptable response from Parliament.
[Translation]
Senator Aucoin: I may be playing devil’s advocate. However, on the other side of the coin, doesn’t the five-year cycle create uncertainty or a barrier for commercial entrepreneurs or others who would want to innovate? In three years, they’ll say that they don’t know how the legislation and regulations will change. So won’t this hold back entrepreneurs or create a barrier or slowdown for innovation and investment in this sector?
I would like to hear your thoughts on this, if you could comment on the matter.
[English]
Mr. Copp: Thank you for the question.
We haven’t looked at it from an innovation perspective. I think with the analysis that we’ve done, again, some regulations could be in place in a couple of years. It’s likely that, given the number of amendments, regulations will come in over the course of a number of years. Our assessment is within that first five-year period. Innovation could be part of that, but our view is that you wouldn’t have enough evidence to do a proper review within that first five-year period and that the 10-year period would be more reasonable.
Senator Galvez: I’ve been in the Senate for 10 years now, and I remember implementing these reviews. I remember the cannabis review was set for four years, and we’re still waiting for it. It’s sad that, despite being in the legislation that we have to do a review, we seldom do reviews. If we are talking about the traditional sector, I would say, yes, sure. I would agree with what Senator Aucoin has said about the other extreme.
This sector, the pace at which it is changing is very rapid. It’s very fast. I think that five years is a good compromise because of the technological change and because energy standards tend to create long-term lock-ins that we don’t want. We need flexibility in that, also because of the regulatory sandboxes for innovation and exceptions. If there are new things that come in, we should be able to correct and include more — I don’t know — expansion of the sandboxes if it’s required or close it if it is not needed. Also, international standards are evolving very fast as well, so maybe in 10 years, we will have missed the train.
To be honest, as I said, we don’t do these reviews, so even if we put it at five years, I’m sure we’re not going to do it in five years, unfortunately. It’s sad to say. I support Senator Wells’ amendment.
The Chair: Senator Aucoin, did I cut you off from another comment that you wanted to make?
[Translation]
Senator Aucoin: No, thank you.
[English]
Senator D. M. Wells: Thank you. I will propose the amendment in a moment, just so everyone is clear on what it is.
There are a couple of things that I’m thinking about. This doesn’t negatively affect the legislation in any way. It doesn’t damage, impinge on or hamper it. It has no tangible effect on the legislation unless it’s having a deleterious effect that wasn’t expected, unless there was an unexpected consequence on — again, I’ll harp on it a little bit — the commercial entities that would be newly subject to it. They’re not subject to it now.
I think a parliamentary review would be a good early-warning system on things that may be having a more negative effect. Or, as Senator Galvez says, there may be technologies, practices or pieces of equipment that come on stream that might be better and that might be flagged by this review five years — or three years after the enactment of the regulations — that would just be stale after the 10-year statutory review that’s being proposed.
Again, if it was materially harming the legislation — and it’s not — in fact, the only thing that it’s doing is providing additional parliamentary oversight to something that’s being proposed, and I don’t see that as negative or deleterious to the process.
Senator Wilson: I have a question for staff and maybe a comment for officials. First of all, in terms of regulatory certainty, is a statuary review something that is going to cause concern within industry in terms of if they’re developing things or putting stuff in place? Is that going to be a concern?
Mr. Copp: I would say, as a way to comment on that directly, we have not had any negative comments from industry in terms of adding in the statutory review. Again, we feel the legislation has not been amended in a long time. Having a regular review as part of the legislation is seen as positive.
We haven’t heard about whether that should be done sooner. I think, in that sense, 10 years makes sense from the outset.
I don’t feel that there would be concern with having that initial 10-year period. Again, that gives time to understand how the act amendments that would come into force on Royal Assent or those that would come in through regulation would be seen by them and give time for that to play out with industry.
Senator Wilson: Thank you. What about Senator Wells’ question about if there was an unintended consequence of the bill; it could be with respect to a commercial entity, whatever it is, I presume you’re not going to wait until that 10-year review to try and correct that if the problem is actually in the legislation itself. What would transpire if a problem did surface?
Mr. Copp: Thank you for the question, senator. You’re right, if there is something that would be seen to be — I mean, the statutory review just ensures that we have a regulatory process for ensuring that we do review the legislation if there were a situation where industry had indicated there was an issue and that process could be undertaken separately if that was determined. But all things being equal, we are still understanding what the effects and the impacts of the legislation are. Our view is that an initial 10-year period would make the most sense.
Senator Wilson: My comment would be I understand it seems harmless, and I’m just concerned that this is a complicated, technical bill, and it’s going to take a long time for us to see the effects of it. We’ve seen the department and heard from folks who work with NRCan that the department has been very responsive in terms of adjusting and moving and changing. I think the legislation is designed to be pretty flexible to allow for that. I’m fine moving onto the amendment and calling the question.
The first thing, I’m not going to be supporting it because I don’t see the department or the government trying to get away from statutory reviews. They’re going to have them every five years after. So it seems to me that, at the 10-year planning horizon, a lot of thought has been put into that. I’m not seeing a reason to change it here, so I won’t be supporting the amendment, but I’m happy for us to move on to that.
Senator Coyle: I actually had my answer from the officials, thank you.
Senator Pupatello: It may have already been said, but just to reconfirm then that if you did have a five-year horizon in the first instant, you’re not going to have the data prepared to give a proper review in the first five years. If the legislation spells out 10 years for the first, then you move into five-year cycles, you’re likely to have appropriate data to do it properly?
Mr. Copp: Yes, that would be correct. That’s not to say we wouldn’t have any data. It’s likely that some of the amendments would come into play on Royal Assent. The first regulations could be in play at that point that we would have some data, but in terms of that full review that would make sense.
Senator Pupatello: This update itself did not come from a review. The update we’re looking at today is because there is a movement among parliamentarians to do it. Just given your history and working with different governments, if the government is motivated to make these changes, they’re not waiting for a review or a report of what happened in the past, just as was the case here.
My own experience and going to bat for the commercial sector because regulation, of course, is the bane of their existence. If there is a real problem, my own experience has been when the government is aware of it, they need to fix it, they’re not going to wait for a review. We will see if in five years we’re going to get that review, and if it tells us what you’re saying, it’s just they have to fix it. I’m not sure, in this particular instant, what your experience is with that, if you wait for a review to actually move on a serious impact on business.
Mr. Copp: Where we see opportunities to do things through regulation, we certainly are doing that regularly. We just passed amendment 18 and are moving into amendment 19. We are actively amending our regulations on an ongoing basis as we see the need to amend that. From a regulatory standpoint, that is happening regularly. The act as we talked about has not been amended in some time. Where there is the opportunity to make small amendments, and certainly if there was a need, we would push for that for sure.
Senator Pupatello: I want to make that note to Senator Wells that you have to be conscious of the impact on the commercial sector and everything the government does. I think, practically speaking, the way this particular amendment is being put forward, in five years there won’t be sufficient data to have a proper review in these first five years. That really makes sense to start it well and continue it in the next five years.
Senator Lewis: I think we already talked about is running through in the first five years major problems come up with commercial entities, and it gives those entities a degree of comfort that there will be a review after five years. The minister is the one who calls the review. If he says there is not enough data to support a review at this time, he can do that. All this does is it gives a degree of comfort to people who will be affected by it. It doesn’t change anything. Give a degree of comfort to the people that are going to be affected by this. It’s not just industry, it’s consumers as well.
Five extra years of fridges going into the dump because you can’t get parts out of Europe. That’s pretty important. You can go to the dump right now; there are all kinds of 4-year-old fridges there they can’t get parts for. That’s reality. To your point, we’re in a circular economy here, and let’s recognize it in the first five years; don’t wait 10. That’s only one extra review. That’s my point.
[Translation]
Senator Youance: I also wanted to put this point forward. This will lead to another review, because no changes will be made for the next five years. I have a question about clauses 26 and 27, the transitional clauses. There’s a six-month period before this legislation applies to commercial entities. Does this mean that the first five years will involve a bit of “getting nowhere”? That’s my question.
[English]
Mr. Copp: Yes, as it relates to clauses that would be delayed in terms of coming into effect, yes, we would only really understand what the effect would be following that and as data would continue to come in.
Senator D. M. Wells: Before I read my amendment — I’m going to be considering what Senator Pupatello said about the possible necessity to have some runway to collect data and that being five years would be suitable.
We also have to remember that once this legislation is enacted as it is now, without further amendment or without amendment on this part, fines can be levied after the regulatory enactment process — we suggest two years, but whatever it is — and that’s not insignificant to a business or commercial entity that may be shipping, not selling, something across a provincial border. So looking 10 years out, the damage will have been done — I think that’s clear — and there will be little recourse. While the discussion was, well, the government would fix it. That’s not my experience.
I look at Senator Lewis, who is a farmer, and other people who have been in business. The government using the tool of regulation does not always have the purpose of fixing; it’s to have a degree of control. Any time there is legislation, policy or regulation, it’s to control, not to free. So I’ll just comment on that. But there are monetary penalties that can be levied. That’s also part of the legislation that we’re dealing with now.
I don’t think it’s unreasonable to have data after three years, and for then Parliament to look at what has happened in the past five years, if it’s going to be after Royal Assent, for Parliament to be able to say, “What have you done in the past three years? But tell me about the regulatory process. Was there a lot of input or buy-in from commercial entities, sellers or retailers or the groups that were initially subject to the previous legislation or existing legislation?” And, “What’s happened in the last three years since those regulations have been enacted?”
It doesn’t require a fulsome set of data to have a review of what’s happened to date since Royal Assent. It’s not a damaging thing. It doesn’t affect the legislation. It just gives additional parliamentary oversight. It allows someone conversant in this, that is a parliamentarian, sitting on committee in this place or the other place, to ask the questions. If those questions are to be asked for the first time in 2036, that’s a long time away. It seems unreasonably long, especially when there is no deleterious effect on being able to ask a question after five years or after three years of data and two years of regulatory enactment that the government does.
The Chair: Would you like to read your amendment?
Senator D. M. Wells: I sure would, chair.
That Bill S-4 be amended in clause 25, on page 30, by replacing lines 30 to 33 with the following:
“58 (1) The Minister shall, five years after the day on which this section comes into force and every five years after that, undertake a review of this Act and its administration and operation, including an assessment of
(a) its effect on commercial entities;
(b) the exemptions provided for under sections 25 to 25.7;
(c) the corrective measures provided for under sections 26 to 26.2; and
(d) the administrative monetary penalties provided for under sections 37 to 54.”.
The Chair: Is there further discussion, or are we ready for the question?
Hon. Senators: Question.
Senator D. M. Wells: I would like to call for a recorded vote, please.
The Chair: All right. Recorded vote.
Ms. Cuerrier: The Honourable Senator Kingston?
Senator Kingston: No.
Ms. Cuerrier: The Honourable Senator Aucoin?
Senator Aucoin: Yes.
Ms. Cuerrier: The Honourable Senator Coyle?
Senator Coyle: Yes.
Ms. Cuerrier: The Honourable Senator Dean?
Senator Dean: No.
Ms. Cuerrier: The Honourable Senator Fridhandler?
Senator Fridhandler: Yes.
Ms. Cuerrier: The Honourable Senator Galvez?
Senator Galvez: Yes.
Ms. Cuerrier: The Honourable Senator Housakos?
Senator Housakos: Yes.
Ms. Cuerrier: The Honourable Senator Lewis?
Senator Lewis: Yes.
Ms. Cuerrier: The Honourable Senator Pupatello?
Senator Pupatello: No.
Ms. Cuerrier: The Honourable Senator Wells?
Senator D. M. Wells: Yes.
Ms. Cuerrier: The Honourable Senator Wilson?
Senator Wilson: No.
Ms. Cuerrier: And the Honourable Senator Youance?
Senator Youance: Yes.
Ms. Cuerrier: Yeas, 8. Nays, 4. Abstentions, 0.
The Chair: So the amendment is carried. Now we go on to the whole thing as amended. So we’re still talking about 25, which was amended twice, once by Senator Coyle, once by Senator Wells, both carried.
Shall clause 25, as amended, carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 26 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 27 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall the title carry? It has been a long time since we talked about the title, so you might need a minute.
Senator D. M. Wells: What’s the title?
An Hon. Senator: No need to — we’re good.
The Chair: Shall the bill, as amended, carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: It is agreed that the law clerk and the parliamentary counsel be authorized to make necessary technical, grammatical or other required non-substantive changes resulting from the amendments adopted by the committee in both official languages, including updating cross-references and renumbering of provisions. Everybody in favour?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Senator D. M. Wells: I am in favour, but this doesn’t prohibit us from attaching observations?
The Chair: We’re going to move into that in just a minute.
The observations do come next. Would we like to move in camera to discuss the observations? All in favour?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
(The committee continued in camera.)