Bill C-30 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) Committee on Feb. 6th, 2007

[Mark Nantais]

I'm not quite sure I understand the question.

I don't think you're suggesting we should get rid of the MOU that we signed.

[Fabian Manning, Conservative, Avalon, NL]

No.

[Mark Nantais]

Regulatory speaking, I think we've categorically stated where we stand on that. We're an integrated industry. There are real benefits that can be derived to Canada. We have some of the best technology coming to Canada as a result of that, such as on our smog-related emission control systems, the most stringent national standards in the world. We can bring them to Canada at less cost, and we can spread that technology more broadly across the North American market much faster.

We think it's the way to go, because the whole program is changing. It's going to become much more stringent and more difficult for manufacturers to meet. It's why we're suggesting that we cannot decouple ourselves from the United States. It's the way we are. We're NAFTA. We're a free trade bloc, if you will. Quite frankly, why would we want to do otherwise?

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

We'll have to cut it off there.

I'd like to give the last slot to Mr. Paradis, who is the last committee member present who hasn't spoken. We took a slot away from the Conservatives this morning.

If everybody is happy with that, we'll hear from Mr. Paradis.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

My question is for the automobile industry representatives.

Under the current Canadian Environmental Protection Act, fuel mixtures are regulated. However, fuel mixture efficiency is not regulated. I see an important difference here.

As I understand from your presentation, sound regulations should start out by focusing on fuel mixture efficiency. I understand that an agreement that one might almost qualify as transitional... You also heard the Prime Minister speak at the noon hour and you stated that regulations were set to come into force.

Is Bill C-30, draft legislation that would regulate fuel mixture efficiency, a necessary starting point on the road to meeting our environmental targets?

[Mark Nantais]

First of all, I think I would agree with your initial statement. We can regulate fuel quality under CEPA. I don't know if you need the Clean Air Act or Bill C-30 to do that. Obviously, you could use it to regulate our fuel quality. The point, though, is that the technology requires appropriate fuels and fuel quality. That's what we call the total systems approach, and if you don't have the fuel quality there, then you're not going to get and consumers are not going to get the environmental benefit of the technology they're paying for.

It's absolutely critical that you match the technology and the fuel and the fuel quality in the marketplace at the same time. That's what we call a total systems approach. That's what we need in Canada. As Mr. Adams pointed out, we were very alarmed, actually, with the reference in the notice of intent suggesting that in terms of quality, the commercial fuels should be left up to the industry.

The State of California--not on fuel economy, I want to be very clear, but on smog-related emissions--recognized the benefits you get by supporting the technology with appropriate fuel quality. California has and has always had some of the best fuel quality in the world, and that's why they've been able to achieve such significant reductions in terms of smog.

We don't have a national fuel strategy in Canada. We don't have a national fuel regulation in Canada. We have a guideline, and it's a guideline that is pretty much driven by the industry that produces the fuel. We actually pulled out of the Canadian General Standards Board on the basis that every time we made a suggestion to them about improving fuel quality it was deemed, under their ballot processing, to be non-persuasive.

So we believe there's a role, whether it be under CEPA or the Clean Air Act, to look after fuel quality as well as perhaps additives.

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

Mr. Chairman, I was in fact talking about fuel content. Based on my understanding of Bill C-30, it would allow for the regulation of fuel mixtures containing renewable fuels. I merely wanted to clarify the crux of my question before Mr. Hargrove took the floor.

[Mark Nantais]

It's the same answer. Yes, it would apply. Under CEPA, though, blends may be a bit of an issue, and I would have to look into that. But I think if the intent under the Clean Air Act is to regulate blends, whether it be alcohol at E10 or E85, then we would support that.

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

Mr. Hargrove, you have—

[Buzz Hargrove]

If I could just comment on that, there are a lot of different options out there. Firstly, every one of them is very expensive. There are a lot of people writing about ethanol now, a corn-based ethanol. You'd have to transfer almost every acre of ground in North America to producing corn to get anywhere near what you'd need for the E85, and then you'd have to put billions of dollars into an infrastructure to make it work.

So putting money into alternative fuels is one way, but the best way is to require the current system to improve fuel efficiency over an established period of time, no matter what you're using--gasoline, E85, or any other--and have each vehicle meet an improved standard, not just the larger vehicles or the smaller, but everybody.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

Thank you, Mr. Hargrove.

We'll have to cut it off there. The bells are ringing for me and my pals.

I would like to thank the witnesses very much for their time and for sticking to the schedule. I appreciate it. Thank you.

I'd like to get the members of the subcommittee up here just briefly to talk about a subcommittee meeting.

The meeting is adjourned.