Evidence of meeting #5 for Bill C-30 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) in the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was fuel.
A recording is available from Parliament.
President, Canadian Vehicle Manufacturers' Association
Yes, the reformed CAFE.
Conservative
Director, Atmosphere and Energy, Sierra Club of Canada, Climate Action Network Canada
As I said earlier, it should be 6.7 litres per 100 kilometres combined fleet average for cars and light trucks by 2011, which is about where they should be at the end of the MOU.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
What percentage would that be off the standard today?
Director, Atmosphere and Energy, Sierra Club of Canada, Climate Action Network Canada
That's about 25%.
Executive Director, Pollution Probe
It should be 2011, with annual improvements to a chosen year. Certainly we should be looking at about a decade, if we can. Also, I'd point out that most cars that are purchased aren't manufactured in Canada. Why can't we start standards on those cars immediately and adjust for the situation of our current auto sector as part of that standard process?
Conservative
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
Mr. Bennett, I want to be fair, you had some comments to make before in relation to some questions.
Director, Atmosphere and Energy, Sierra Club of Canada, Climate Action Network Canada
On this 37, they're mixing their metaphors. They're telling you the new fleet is very different on greenhouse gases. It's not. It hasn't improved marginally in the last 15 or 16 years. The number they're giving you is about the improvement in the smog emissions, but their climate change emissions aren't that much different. If you had the last seven years...it's about the same. The standard hasn't changed since 1990, and the fleet hasn't improved significantly since then.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Laurie Hawn
Thank you. Your time is up.
Mr. Holland, for five minutes, please.
Liberal
Mark Holland Liberal Ajax—Pickering, ON
It has been asked a number of times, but perhaps you can get back to us with an answer. The issue on new fleet and reduction of greenhouse gas emissions is not clear at all. Basically we're told that 1% of the 12% is new cars, but the real question is if you were....
I agree with Mr. Ogilvie. It is a stretch to believe that overnight you could replace all the vehicles in Canada. Everybody would agree with that. But just so we have a basis of what kind of difference it would or wouldn't make, if all the vehicles were replaced, then what would that 12% be? Would it still be 12%, or would it be some other number? It certainly wouldn't be 1%. There was some impression that it would be 1%. I don't think it would. If we could have that number, it would be helpful, because it would determine the usefulness of focusing on new fleet, as it pertains to greenhouse gas emissions.
On the comment “don't pick winners and losers”, I agree with that notion, in a broader context. Maybe you, as a panel, could help me with the following problem. We have serious infrastructure issues in terms of bringing either new fuel forward or outlets to deliver that fuel. Let me give you some examples. If we're talking about going in the direction of biodiesel, then obviously we have to find ways to ramp up production and find locations to distribute that biodiesel. If we go the route of ethanol, we have to produce sites to distribute that ethanol. If we go the route of hydrogen, for which possibly the first commercially available vehicles would be in 2010, then we obviously have to have a hydrogen infrastructure in place.
I'm guessing that those of you in the auto industry are not suggesting you're going to provide that infrastructure. Obviously, we would have to, or we would have to be part of it. You say “don't pick the winners”, yet by the same token we have to come to some conclusion about how we actually get these alternative fuels that you are telling us is the real meat of where we can get reductions and improve quality. How would we get that infrastructure in place if we're not picking winners or losers?
President, Association of International Automobile Manufacturers of Canada
If I could start, Mr. Holland, I think in terms of looking at something like E85, it's not particularly technology that my members have embraced as much as Mr. Nantais' have, but I think infrastructure is critical there. I think that's why the focus is on fleet applications in terms of does it not make sense that rather than spread that infrastructure across Canada, you would set up either government fleets or even commercial fleets, where a small infrastructure could be set up for that fuel that could then service a whole fleet of vehicles in a commercial or government application, for instance?
In terms of alternative fuels generally, perhaps a lower percentage of ethanol—for instance, 5% in the mandate that's being looked at—widely disbursed across the country is a more reasonable way to pursue that.
Liberal
Mark Holland Liberal Ajax—Pickering, ON
Just before others answer, I'm interested in other answers, but you can understand the dilemma that's in front of us, which is that certainly one wouldn't say that we should develop infrastructure for all of the emerging technologies, so how do we deal with that? It becomes extremely problematic, because if the answer is in the fuels, as is being told to us right now, then what fuels are we betting on and what infrastructure are we trying to get? We can't have ethanol offered at every gas station, biodiesel at every station, and hydrogen at every station. To some extent, we have to choose, and that's the dilemma. How do we get around that if it is in fact the reality that fuel is going to be a big or principal driver of these improvements?
President, Canadian Vehicle Manufacturers' Association
The gasoline infrastructure is in place and it's widespread. We have, in the foreseeable future, a dependence on gasoline, but if you can get upwards of a 66% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by putting infrastructure in place for something like ethanol, particularly cellulosic ethanol, why wouldn't you want to consider that? What's the real objective here? It's to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
So you have an existing infrastructure. We're not asking every station out there to convert to ethanol. We're saying fleets are a classic case, because everybody has to come home at night to refuel. So you have one refueling place, but you can get all these vehicles on the road and have some real material reductions there.
In the United States, for instance, they're concentrating on independent gas stations. The big brand names don't seem very interested, so car companies are going to the independents and—guess what—there's uptake. But they're providing some support to those stations to put in place maybe at least one pump.
So, no, we're not looking for massive conversion of the infrastructure. We're looking for selective, centralized infrastructure—for fleets, for instance—and some progressive evolution of an infrastructure in terms of retail. We have ethanol, particularly cellulosic; and we have Iogen, for instance, in the city of Ottawa, which is a front-runner in this. Guess what? We suspect their first plant is going to go to the United States. I think we're missing a huge opportunity here, particularly when we have over 300,000 of these vehicles now on the road and running on gasoline, not cellulosic or ethanol. It's missed opportunity.
I'm not sure you still have to make that selection. All we're saying is, in terms of vehicle technology, don't pick winners and losers. Look to some infrastructure opportunities such as I've just described.
Ultimately we could see developing countries and developing economies—and everybody looks to China—maybe actually leapfrog some of the technologies. They might, just like they did on telephones, skip all the telephone lines and go directly to cellular. Maybe they'll leapfrog and go directly to a hydrogen fuel infrastructure.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Laurie Hawn
We'll have to cut it off there.
Mr. Manning, you have five minutes.
Conservative
Fabian Manning Conservative Avalon, NL
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Hargrove, I just want to touch on a comment you made earlier in relation to surveys that have been conducted throughout the country. I think you referred to one from CTV as an example, and you made a comment that we all agree that there needs to be something done to improve our environment and that the Kyoto Protocol was something that your organization supported.
I have just a quick question first, and then I'll do a follow-up.
Under the Kyoto Protocol, we had certain targets. We've heard from witnesses here about the impossibility of reaching those targets. What's your view on that in relation to reaching the targets that were set out by Kyoto?
President, Canadian Auto Workers Union
No country that signed on to Kyoto has been able to meet the targets, but that doesn't mean they're meaningless. As long as everybody is working towards those targets and using their own best way to get there, I still think it's the most important way.
If we were to close all of our industry down and shut down our airlines, our rail, and everything, in Canada we wouldn't solve a portion of the greenhouse gas problem around the world. We're too small. It has to be done as a collective of the nations of the world.
Conservative
Fabian Manning Conservative Avalon, NL
I also made a note of another comment you made on an intelligent path to get there, and I certainly agree with that.
Last night we had a motion in the House put forward by the opposition and supported by the other parties that Canada meet its Kyoto targets by 2008 and 2012. I've been listening to you for a little while, and I'm very concerned. I'd like to ask this. If that motion became law and we followed through on it, could you tell us today what effect it would have on the auto industry in this country and on the jobs here in this country within the auto industry? If we used a sledgehammer on that today, what effect would it have on the auto industry?
President, Canadian Auto Workers Union
My colleague says I can't answer that, but I think I can answer it.
First, it's impossible to get there by 2008 and 2012. That would be the point I would make.
Even if Canada did everything possible, it couldn't do it by itself. If the United States doesn't do it, and if other major powers around the world don't move in lockstep, then you still have a problem. Why would we jeopardize everything that Canadians hold dear while others are going merrily along their way?
February 6th, 2007 / 5:20 p.m.
Conservative
Director, Atmosphere and Energy, Sierra Club of Canada, Climate Action Network Canada
I would.
There's no reason why we can't make the target. The Kyoto Protocol has numerous flexible mechanisms designed to allow countries like Canada to meet the target.
On my comment to Mr. Hargrove that he couldn't answer the question, well, he can't tell you what effect it would have on the auto industry until we know what regulations are going to be applied and what incentives are going to be put in place. We can't answer that question until we know those answers first.
President, Canadian Vehicle Manufacturers' Association
It's a very loaded question, but I will say this. Mr. Bennett is right in some respects. Until we know how we're going to deal with it and what policies or regulations we might put in place, it's tough to understand.
But to the extent that it affects the auto industry, we look to our full supply chain, right from mining the ore in the ground, through to steel production, plastic productions, and petrochemicals. All of these things are in some way going to be severely impacted by what it is and how we do it in terms of meeting our Kyoto Protocol obligations.
I can't say how it's going to affect us for that reason. We just don't know. But I can tell you that there could be a severe impact on our supply chain.
Conservative
Fabian Manning Conservative Avalon, NL
Let's get back to voluntary versus mandatory compliance and your comment on that earlier. You gave us some idea that over the past number of years you were voluntary compliance.
As a committee, in trying to find a balance to put forward to address some of the concerns we have, like mandatory compliance over a period of years, is there something under a mandatory compliance that you could put forward to us today that you or your industry could accept? Instead of having voluntary compliance, where, even though you've worked on that, it's left to the winds, is there something we could have some checks and balances on through mandatory compliance?