Debates of June 9th, 1995

Business Of The House

[Jim Abbott, Reform, Kootenay East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I would suggest it would be valuable if the parliamentary secretary were to identify the document he is reading from. I am making a statement that there is no such authorized publication by the Reform Party in that form.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

I say respectfully to the hon. member for Kootenay East that the accuracy of the actual document being quoted from that might be debated. But it is certainly not a point of order.

[Peter Milliken, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I understand the members' discomfort. They are simply trying to run out my time.

[Jim Abbott, Reform, Kootenay East, BC]

Well, identify the document.

[Peter Milliken, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

I did. I read the title to the hon. member. It says: "The Little Book of Reform: The Gospel According to Preston Manning and the Reform Party". It is published by Little Red Book, Arsenal Pulp Press. It is compiled by Christopher Gudgeon and Mark Leiren-Young.

[Jim Abbott, Reform, Kootenay East, BC]

A little red book? Oh.

[Peter Milliken, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

I am sorry that hon. members do not have copies. Anyway, I would like to quote from their leader before my time runs out.

"People make assumptions that we are eccentric, that we have weird baggage on policy, that we are extreme and that we are separatists. We are not extreme. We are not crazy. We are not separatists." That is the hon. member for Calgary Southwest.

With great respect, hon. members opposite are asking us to substitute Reform policy for Liberal policy. The Liberal Party, as a government elected on principles outlined in the red book, will not do that. I ask hon. members to stop asking for that. Vote against these bills if members want to do so, but for heaven's sake, recognize that the government has an obligation to do what it said it would do.

If the Reform Party were in government I hope they would try to live up to their promises, as we are succeeding in living up to ours.

[Chuck Strahl, Reform, Fraser Valley East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have two points of order. One, is it common when one quotes from a book or whatever that the member would table that document?

Second, during his remarks the member made mention that the Reform Party was somehow in bed with the Conservatives. He is imputing motives, and I so not think that is right.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Let me be brief and succinct. That is no point of order.

And more than five members have risen:

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Pursuant to Standing Order 27, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the motion now before the House. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And more than five members having risen:

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Pursuant to Standing Order 45, the recorded division stands deferred until Monday, June 12, 1995, at the ordinary hour of daily adjournment.

Government Response To Petitions

[Peter Milliken, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table, in both official languages and pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), the government's response to 21 petitions.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

It being 2.08 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business, as listed on today's Order Paper.

Before we proceed to private members' business, I get indication from a number of members who were possibly waiting for tabling of petitions. Regrettably, in terms of process, given the events of the day, daily routine of business in those circumstances is cut off after government bills. If any further information might be required by any member I would simply advise members to seek the expertise of our table officers.

The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill S-7, an act to accelerate the use of alternative fuels for motor vehicles, as reported (with amendment) from the committee.

Alternative Fuels Act

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

There are six motions in amendment standing on the Notice Paper for the report stage of Bill S-7, an act to accelerate the use of alternative fuels for motor vehicles. Motions 1 and 4 have been withdrawn.

Motions Nos. 2, 3, 5 and 6 will be grouped for debate. A vote on Motion No. 2 applies to Motions Nos. 3, 5 and 6.

I will now submit Motions Nos. 2, 3, 5 and 6 to the House.

[Lee Morrison, Reform, Swift Current—Maple Creek—Assiniboia, SK]

moved:

Motion No. 2

That Bill S-7, in Clause 2, be amended by deleting lines 11 to 14, on page 2.

Motion No. 3

That Bill S-7, in Clause 3, be amended by replacing line 32, on page 2, with the following:

"federal bodies will be".

Motion No. 5

That Bill S-7 be amended by deleting Clause 5.

Motion No. 6

That Bill S-7, in Clause 8, be amended by replacing lines 9 to 15, on page 4, with the following:

"end of each fiscal year, by the President of the Treasury Board, a report for the year on the application of this Act in respect of all federal bodies."

Mr. Speaker, of these four amendments, the amendment of substance, which required the tabling of the other three, is Motion No. 5, that Bill S-7 be amended by deleting clause 5. The objective is to remove crown corporations from being covered by this bill.

Historically, crown corporations are supposed to act at arm's length from political interference. In recent years they have even in some cases been expected to make money and to run their operations in the same manner as private business. Therefore, although this House can, if it wishes, proceed to pass laws to regulate the operations of federal departments, I suggest that when it starts delving into the minute detail of the operations of a crown corporation it is exceeding its authority. Therefore I have tabled these amendments.

If we are going to talk about what government should and should not do, I would like to elaborate a little more on that. It is not the business of government to pick winners and losers in the marketplace. I have received more intense corporate lobbying in favour of this bill than I have ever encountered in the brief year and a half that I have been in this place. Let us be clear about something. I do not have a problem with the practical purposes of this bill. The objectives are fine. The intentions are fine. But we know where the road goes that is paved with these intentions.

The bill is very general in its wording, but it mandates a market specifically for propane and natural gas. There is mention in passing in the bill to ethanol, to hydrogen, to electricity, but let us be realistic, let us be honest: what we are talking about is propane and natural gas. The propane and natural gas companies have been doing the intense lobbying, along with various manufacturers and jobbers who would have a special interest in converting the government fleet.

I do not have any problem with the products of these corporations being used as automotive fuels. Propane and natural gas have a very legitimate place in the energy mix and they have a well-defined applicability for vehicle fleets with high usage rates, especially in urban areas.

In my riding we produce large amounts of both natural gas and liquid petroleum, so I do not believe I can be accused of geographic bias. My objections to this bill are based on technological, economic, and environmental considerations. In other words, I am not lobbying for anyone.

I previously stated that there are certain applications where the use of these alternate fuels makes economic sense. Unfortunately, within the government fleet a very small number of vehicles have a sufficiently high annual fuel consumption or cover a sufficiently high annual distance to make them economically viable for conversion. This has been brought out by one of the government's own studies, the Bronson study, which indicated that only some 10 to 20 per cent of government vehicles are really good candidates for conversion.

However, in this bill the schedule of conversions suggests that by April 1, 1997, 50 per cent of all new vehicle purchases have to be for vehicles with alternate fuel capacity, one year later it is 60 per cent and finally building up to 75 per cent of new vehicle purchases in 1999. Ultimately 75 per cent of all vehicles in the fleet will have to run on some alternate fuel.

An amendment has been presented and passed in committee adding the words "where it is economically feasible". When this was discussed in committee nobody seemed to know exactly what that meant. Frankly, I do not know what it means either because where economically feasible can mean whatever one wants it to mean depending on who is presenting the argument. This muddy bill has been mudified even further with this amendment.

Let us do what we are supposed to do in this House which is to formulate policy. Let us not tell our fleet managers for heaven's sake how to manage their fleets. How nitpicking in detail do we get and for what reason?

I would suggest that the lobbyists who are pressing for this bill want to set a precedent. They want to show that there is an opening for their product. If they cannot sell it in the marketplace or convince people to convert on the basis of sound economics then they say: "Let us have the government mandate a market for us, even if it is just a little tiny one of 39,000 vehicles". If my amendment is accepted, it would be 25,000 vehicles out of some seven million cars and vans. It is not going to make a great deal of difference to them on the spot. However, it sets a precedent of government interference in the normal course of doing business in the fuel industry. That is what I and the Reform Party do not want to see.

I mentioned the environmental aspects. Everything is not black and white on the environmental effects of converting from gasoline or diesel over to natural gas and propane. Some emissions actually are worse with the compressed gas products than they are with gasoline and diesel.

I refer specifically to nitrous oxides. Because of the higher compression ratios of the gas powered vehicles they are produced in considerably higher quantities than they are in gasoline and diesel motors. This has a profound effect on acid rain among other things. Other pollutants such as carbon dioxide are produced in lower quantities than the gaseous fuels. However, it is not entirely black and white.

Therefore, I am stating flatly that these decisions should be left to the experts, the people we pay to operate our motor pools. We as politicians should keep out of it. We are not all mechanics or engineers. Let us let the marketplace decide what will happen here. If the product is good these lobbyists should be out selling it to the people who have to do the buying, not selling it here in Parliament.

I almost hate to admit it but in part of our government we do have some good management, in the RCMP fleet. It has 32 per cent of the vehicles owned by the federal government apart from the crown vehicles. It certainly does not want to be put in a position of being mandated to do a conversion. Can we envisage pursuit cars on the highway powered by propane? The RCMP could change its slogan from "we get our man" to "we sometimes catch him if he does not have a good start".

Propane has its place; natural gas has its place. These places should be decided on the basis of practicality and realism, not on the basis of what some high powered lobbyist wants the government to do.

During first reading there was some comment about ways the government, if it is sincere about wanting to do away with emissions, could solve some of the problems without getting into conversion. I believe my hon. colleague from Macleod suggested the ministers with their big fat limousines could have their chauffeurs turn the motors off once in a while in winter when they are parked out front.

Maybe they could even go to smaller vehicles. I would like to see all the ministers put in very small cars. If the government really wants to cut down on the emission of noxious gases in the precincts of government it could drive the whole bunch of them into the Ottawa River. That would be a good form of closure.

[René Canuel, Bloc, Matapédia—Matane, QC]

Mr. Speaker, you have been very patient so far, and I hope you will be patient with me, too.

This planet was loaned to us, so to speak, so that we could improve it if possible. If we want to leave a valuable legacy to our children, we must protect the earth. Obviously, I am in favour of Bill S-7, because its purpose is to convert 75 per cent

of all federal vehicles by the year 2004 so that they can run on fuels that are less damaging to the environment. I think that this should have been done a long time ago.

The bill defines alternative fuels as fuels that are less damaging to the environment. What I find harder to understand is that the expression "less damaging" is not defined in the bill. What does that mean?

In proper French, propane gas should be called "propane" instead of "propane gas".

Here are some facts. The federal fleet now includes more than 39,000 vehicles, which emit some 156,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere every year. This is terrible.

Every year, 570 million tonnes of various greenhouses gases are emitted into the air from coast to coast. This is called pollution. For the past 18 years or so, the gases accumulated in the air have caused a gradual warming of the planet. The best experts predict that the earth's average temperature will rise by 1.5 to 4.5 degrees Celsius within a few years, which is almost unbelievable.

This rise in temperature will have a major impact on sea levels, on ecosystems, of course, on the amount of drinking water and, as a result, on agriculture and human health.

Every year, new diseases appear. We do not know where they come from, but we know very well where they are leading us. They are leading us to our death, of course, without our realizing it. By polluting the environment, thus aggravating these diseases, we are killing thousands of children.

We will then spend enormous amounts on detecting these diseases. It is an endless cycle because, humans being what they are, they cannot keep adapt to nature. You know, nature is brilliantly organized; yet, with all our brains, we are going to destroy it.

The Canadian government has committed itself in front of the international community to stabilizing greenhouse gas emissions at their 1990 level by the year 2000. The problem is however that, while she was prepared to do that much, the hon. minister was unable to get Cabinet approval. This means that there are several ministers on the other side of this House who are not aware of the consequences. That is a tragedy.

Carbon dioxide emissions in Quebec are half the Canadian average. We, in Quebec, have been taking our responsibilities in this regard for many years. If only the federal government would follow our lead. I am not saying that everything is hunky-dory in Quebec; much needs to be done, but compared to others, we are certainly on the right track.

Some, like the Reformers, question the validity of scientific results pointing to the existence of a greenhouse effect. I would like to share with you some of the reasons why I am for Bill S-7. In addition, this bill was introduced by a senator, and I congratulate him on that.

In a speech to this House, I said that the senators were creatures living in a large aquarium, in which they swim now and then, although not too fast, and then rest. But seriously-I must be logical and responsible here-there are senators who do an excellent job and the sponsor of this bill is one of them.

By passing Bill S-7, we will force the Canadian government to set an example. It will have to practice what it preaches, which it has never done yet.

Of course, Treasury Board directives were issued regarding the conversion and improved management of the federal fleet. However, we are forced to recognize that these have hit a wall of inaction and resistance to change. Only through legislation will the government departments and agencies be forced to comply with the new environmental priorities.

In addition, the federal government will save approximately $43 million in fuel over five years and another $15 million in the following years. Of course it will be a little more expensive. It will cost almost $1,500 more per vehicle purchased, a total of approximately $38.5 million more over a period of five years. However, it should also create savings of $7 million over five years.

Converting the federal government's fleet will have a ripple effect which will break the vicious circle of the low demand for converted vehicles because of the small number of outlets selling the fuel, which itself is caused by the small number of converted vehicles on the road, etc, etc. We hope that the large car manufacturers and fuel suppliers will take this opportunity to develop new models and to cultivate new markets.

Clause 2, however, sets three conditions in the legal definition of an "alternative fuel". The three conditions are the following. The fuel must be: (a) for use in motor vehicles to deliver direct propulsion; (b) less damaging to the environment than conventional fuels, and (c) prescribed by regulation.

I have some doubts about that definition, even though we support this bill.

One can, nevertheless, not help but wonder about the relevance of designating specific fuels which, after scientific analyses and the development of new technology, could very well be condemned within a few years as more harmful to the environment than other fuels.

I will give you an example. According to an article in Le Devoir , a study carried out by Carnegie University revealed that a 1988 vehicle which ran on electricity emitted 60 times more

lead into the environment per kilometre than a comparable vehicle which ran on leaded gasoline.

What is considered less harmful at a given point in time can change drastically because of new developments and new technology.

Despite these reservations, we support Bill S-7. Canada, the second largest producer of garbage in the world, the second greatest energy consumer and second highest emitter of greenhouse gases per capita, cannot afford to once miss such an opportunity.

[Ian McClelland, Reform, Edmonton Southwest, AB]

Madam Speaker, I join in the debate today with a mixed message. Very few things we encounter in Parliament and in life are entirely black or entirely white. They are usually a shade of grey, with the notable exception of the ongoing pension debate which is fairly direct in black and white. One is either on the side of the angels on that one or not. Today we are talking about Bill S-7, the alternative fuels act. In my opinion it is not quite so cut and dried.

Our party is basically a free enterprise party. Our position is that if it can be done in the marketplace by the marketplace that is probably where the motivation and the determination for what happens in life should be made, primarily if we are talking about things commercial.

The legislation is typical of government's desire to somehow manipulate the market or determine what is best for Canadians rather than let the marketplace decide what is best for Canadians.

On the other side of the coin is the fact that most people are very much aware that some alternative fuels, specifically propane and natural gas, are far less polluting to the atmosphere. They are in great supply in Canada and are relatively cheap.

If we could induce the marketplace to convert to propane or to natural gas, we would definitely be in a win-win situation, especially if the inducement for the marketplace to convert was of a moral suasion nature rather than an inducement by having to spend taxpayers' money to do it.

Other aspects of the bill on alternative fuels are not so benign. My colleague who spoke before me raised the point about electric cars. There is a possibility that electric cars put more lead into the atmosphere than people had anticipated. When we talk about converting to ethanol we have to look beyond the immediate where it makes sense to use ethanol as a replaceable product. We can grow it. We can get it from the farms. It is not a depleting resource. It makes sense, especially if it is mixed with gas. However, as we dig into the ethanol situation we discover the cost to the environment to produce ethanol is not so benign. It has to be fertilized. It costs a fair amount to grow the crop. Then resources have to be put into the refining of ethanol. The cost relative to gasoline is substantially higher.

The bill is not quite so easy. While part of it deals with alternative fuels which are readily changeable to and are very good for the environment, part of it also deals with other alternative fuels that may not be.

I should like to put on record a few thoughts about what happened in Brazil's mandate to move to ethanol:

Brazil's ethanol program is the world's largest and most ambitious government initiative supporting alternative motor fuels. In 1979, Brazil's passenger car fleet was comprised almost exclusively of gasoline vehicles; a decade later, about 30 per cent of its vehicles were built to run on ethanol. In the period 1975 to 1979, ethanol was blended with gasoline as a fuel extender in a 20 per cent ethanol-80 per cent gasoline blend.

In 1979, as a result of large oil price increases, the government decided that a new fuel-96 per cent ethanol-was needed to replace gasoline at the fastest possible rate. This decision meant that new fuel and automotive infrastructures were required. A large expansion of ethanol production capacity was needed to meet the government's new target of 10.7 billion litres by 1985. This changed the cost and character of the program: until 1979, ethanol production had been increased by using existing distilleries at sugar refineries; the 1985 ethanol production target could only be met by building new free-standing distilleries dedicated to producing ethanol. There were also new demands placed on the fuel distribution system. For example, local fuel stations needed to add pumps dedicated exclusively to dispensing ethanol fuel.

Consumers who had converted vehicles to take advantage of ethanol prices encountered problems with poor quality conversions. Also, after 1980, consumers faced higher fuel prices when the government increased ethanol prices [previously as low as 40 per cent of the price of gasoline].

This begs a question. We were going through the effort then to convert to alternative fuels that are cheaper today. What will happen when the market supply is such that suddenly there is enough demand? The price is likely to go up and we will not have a price advantage. That is the way the marketplace tends to work.

The quotation continues:

Consumers reacted rapidly, and ethanol vehicle sales fell to less than 10 per cent of total vehicle sales by July 1981.

The government then renewed its support for the program by holding ethanol prices at 59 per cent of gasoline prices for two years and extending ethanol vehicle purchase incentives. Auto makers improved ethanol vehicles by using corrosion resistant materials, adding a small pump to inject gasoline to reduce cold starting problems and improving ethanol vehicle warranties. Public confidence in ethanol vehicles steadily recovered, with purchases peaking in 1985 at about 95 per cent of the vehicle sales.

Ethanol demand began to outstrip production as early as 1986. From late 1989 to early 1990, there was an acute shortage of ethanol, and consumers with dedicated ethanol vehicles waited in long fuel lines. Ethanol vehicle sales dropped from over 50 per cent of the 1988 market to less than 4 per cent of vehicle sales in

mid-1990. Most cars made in Brazil now are designed for ethanol/gasoline blends rather than neat ethanol.

That was a long quote, but I thought it important to refer to the fact that once the government gets into the marketplace by regulating either the gasoline that can be sold, or the types of vehicles that should be sold, or in one way or another artificially changing the cost of a particular fuel, it sets up an intrinsic, automatic adjustment in the marketplace. The marketplace will be its own master. No matter how beneficial or how benign the intent behind a government motion might be, we cannot automatically assume that the result in the marketplace will have the same benign reaction.

As I said earlier, there are conversions which on the face of them make great sense: the conversion to propane or to liquefied natural gas, particularly the conversion to propane in Canada. I believe there are over 3,000 stations in existence today in Canada that will allow people to fill up their vehicles with propane. Propane is significantly lower in price than gasoline. It has wide acceptance in fleets of taxis. It has wide acceptance in other industrial fleets. It is a consumer recognized good product.

There is really no need for the government to provide any particular incentive for people to use common sense. We as a nation do not have the money any longer to be inducing consumers or changing the marketplace at our whim.