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

[Mark Nantais]

Mr. Lussier, I think we need to remember that we have companies in Canada that have research facilities. They are developing everything in Canada from hybrids.... In fact, we're going to have the first hybrid built at Ford Motor Company, for instance. It's the first hybrid in Canada. If we have healthy companies in Canada that have research facilities, they're going to continue to do the research and development, and they'll commercialize the technology as we go forward.

We have to ask ourselves what the main objective is. Are we looking for something that's going to cause a great deal of pain for the auto industry? Are we looking for something in terms of regulation that is going to provide something reasonable, something that continues to provide high-value, high-paying jobs in our industry--literally tens of thousands of jobs--and do it in a fashion that will give us environmental benefit and ensure that we continue to do innovation and research and development in this country for high-value jobs, or are we trying to do something that is basically going to hurt them?

I would suggest that we're better off addressing the economy and addressing jobs in a way that can still provide the environmental benefit. I think we can do that if we choose a regulatory direction that is reasonable. We think, with the new changes in the U.S., that it will be aligned with CAFE.

[Marcel Lussier, Bloc, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Is your association in favour of the government offering a tax incentive to companies that manufacture electric automobiles or hydrogen-powered vehicles?

[Mark Nantais]

Our argument is this. It starts with a series of things. First off, where are you going to get the biggest bang for your buck? Where are you going to get the largest emissions reduction? We would suggest to you that it's in the areas of fuel quality and renewable fuels, because when you add the fuel to the technology, you get maximum environmental benefit.

Second, there is the fleet aspect. There is huge influence there that can be levied by fleets in terms of procurement. The more vehicles we get in fleets, the more people can see that these technologies do work and will provide environmental benefit. In terms of roles, the government has a role there, but there are also private fleets. Why wouldn't we provide incentives to commercial and private fleets as well? Get more vehicles out on the road and get them the fuel they need to do the emissions. As well, what about these older vehicles? We could provide incentives to get the older vehicles off the road. It would help some of the lower-income people as well.

Third is the technology itself. We would suggest that you not pick winners and losers. There's a full slate of technology; some cost more than others, but some technologies provide more environmental benefit than a more expensive technology. We would say to you, because we're all competing very fiercely in the marketplace, that you should not pick in terms of winners and losers, but pick on a GHG basis or something for environmental benefit.

The other one would be research and development. We want to expand research and development in Canada. We want to provide the technologies--made here, sold here, and ultimately exported abroad--because that's where it's going to be at as we move forward.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

Okay. We need to stop there.

Mr. Jean is next, please, for five minutes.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It was mentioned that if all old vehicles were taken off the road, there'd be 50% fewer fatalities. I'm curious: if all the vehicles that were one year old or older were taken off the road as of today, what percentage of GHGs would we actually save? Does anybody have any figures on that?

[Buzz Hargrove]

It would reduce overnight to 1%. We contribute about 12% today. We would reduce overnight. If you took all the vehicles that are a year old or older, you would be down.... It wouldn't be a problem; we wouldn't be talking about our industry.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

What is the percentage? It's now 12% of the total greenhouse gas emissions. What percentage would it be, approximately, would you suggest, Mr. Hargrove? What percentage would you suggest? The transportation industry is now at 12% of GHG emissions, correct?

[Buzz Hargrove]

Yes.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

What percentage would you suggest it would be?

[Buzz Hargrove]

We are down to 1% on the new vehicles sold. The quickest way to reduce to 1% is to get rid of all the older vehicles. It's not realistic to say that we're going to take everything a year back, but if you went from even ten years back....

Mark, what are the numbers? Is it 37%?

[Mark Nantais]

It's 37 to one.

[Buzz Hargrove]

Yes, it's 37 to one, so it's a huge improvement. Getting some of the older vehicles off in a hurry would make a big difference.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

Mr. Ogilvie, do you have a very quick response, please?

[Kenneth Ogilvie]

Well, of course 92% of the Canadian public wouldn't be driving a car if you took all the old vehicles off the road. That's one issue, but also—

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

The point was to replace them with modern vehicles with modern fuel systems.

[Kenneth Ogilvie]

Yes, but then you'd be much more than 1%.

Anyway, I'll go back to the point about the U.S. EPA 2006 projections. The fleet today is no more fuel efficient, in total, than it was 20 years ago. Had that technology, or at least some of it, been put into fuel efficiency instead of into increased power and speed, we would be much more fuel efficient today. That's what a standard will do for you.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

I understand.

I'd like to have this question answered by every one of the people here, but I'd like to start with the auto sector. I'd like you to be fast, as well, just simply because of the time. We have a committee chair who holds us to that time.

First of all, what timeframe would you like to see the regulations brought in--the short, medium, and long term--and what percentage would you like to see in each of those categories?

I'd like to start with Mr. Hargrove. Could you take less than 30 seconds, please?

[Buzz Hargrove]

I'd like 25% fuel efficiency on every vehicle sold in Canada by the 2014 model year.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

Do you see any terms--short, long--or is that it?

[Buzz Hargrove]

You'd have to start immediately to get there by 2014.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

Mr. Adams.

[David Adams]

Our proposal would be for the end of the MOU, which is 2011. In terms of the percentage, as we've been saying, we need to work in an integrated fashion in the North American environment, which makes that percentage difficult.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

Mr. Nantais.

[Mark Nantais]

Like the AIAMC members, we want post-2010. We want alignment with the U.S. CAFE. We have to remember, of course, that we have a fleet that is smaller in Canada. Actually, the challenge we have is harder in Canada because we have the smaller fleet already. It's much more difficult to shift things forward, but we will end up with a bigger benefit, if you will, if we were to do that.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

If I understand it, the auto sector is interested in following the American standard, in essence. Is that fairly—