By Senator Colin Kenny
The excess gas being guzzled by federal vehicles is only topped by the excess gas spewing from the most recent Treasury Board report lauding the government for complying with the Alternative Fuels Act.
The Act, you will recall, received Royal Assent in June, 1995. Under its terms, 75 per cent of government vehicles use alternate fuels by April 1, 2004, “where it is cost-effective and operationally feasible.” At the current stage, 75 per cent of all new vehicles purchased must be capable of running on alternative fuels, when feasible, of course, when cost-effective.
The Treasury Board’s Report giddily pronounces that in this latest year those government departments and agencies designated in the Act have been “in full compliance” for the fourth straight year.
After making this claim with a straight face, the report follows up with a pathetic list of nine excuses to explain why . . . well . . . why the numbers look so bad when the government is doing so gosh-darned well. It takes a spin-doctor with real chutzpah to put out a report saying our behaviour is wonderful, here are the obstacles that explain our pitiful behaviour.
Let’s just take a look at the numbers behind the government’s alternative fuels “success story.”. Departments and agencies listed in the bought 3,282 automobiles, passenger vans, light- and medium-duty trucks and buses last year. Of these180 will operate on natural gas, propane, electricity or high-percentage ethanol. That’s 5.5 per cent, not 75 per cent.
But it’s “full compliance” – heck, it’s more than full compliance – because of the big brick wall of cost-effectiveness, a wall embedded at the top with the broken glass of operational feasibility. Who can climb a wall that formidable? The answer is, nobody without a genuine will to get to the other side.
After I proudly navigated the Alternate Fuels Act through Parliament as a private member’s bill, the Prime Minister kindly called me and my hard-working staff to his office to congratulate us. I told him then that I hoped the government’s good will in allowing the bill to pass would be matched by the political will to prod the bureaucracy into compliance. Not so far.
The excuses set out to explain the lousy numbers are noteworthy in that they are advanced without the slightest suggestion as to how they might be overcome. You might expect the Treasury Board to offer up ways to show that genuine efforts are being made to turn 5.5 per cent into 75 per cent. Nope. Just a bunch of excuses, lying at the bottom of the report like dead fish.
Excuse 1. It seems that there continue to be a “limited supply” of factory-produced ATF vehicles suitable for government operations. Do you think there would be a limited supply if the government purchasers quit buying so many makes and models and made it clear that it would pretty well limit itself to buying large numbers of the best car, van, truck and bus the industry put forward that could run on alternate fuels?
Excuse 2. ATF vehicles currently cost between $185 and $3,569 more than standard vehicles. Fine. Buy fewer vehicles. The report notes that most federal vehicles don’t get all that much use. Hmmm. Doesn’t that suggest that there could be more use of taxis, buses, motorbikes and bicycles?
Excuse 3. There aren’t enough service stations that sell natural gas, propane and ethanol.
It is true that natural gas is more readily available in western Canada than it is in Ottawa. But propane? There are more propane-selling stations in this country than there are diesel-selling stations, and we run a huge trucking industry largely fuelled on diesel. Could it be that federal drivers can’t be bothered? MacEwen Fuels runs an ethanol station about 20 blocks from Parliament Hill, but my experience is that, even though many drivers sit around waiting for what they know will be extended periods, not a lot of them make their way to MacEwen’s to fill up.
Excuse 4. Conversion kits on the market often lag behind the requirements of brand new models. Hey, these vehicles don’t get redesigned and retooled overnight? Why not make the vehicle manufacturers give the coversion kit manufacturers specifications they can work with so the kits are ready when the new vehicles come out.
The list drones on. The bottom line is, there is a lack of caring going on here. We knew from the start that the Act wouldn’t work unless a lot of people gave it their best shot at making it work. Giving it you best shot requires doing more than putting out a specious, self-congratulatory report once a year. When it comes to genuine willpower on the issue of alternative fuels, this government is running on empty.