American regulations play a big role in Canada because auto makers produce vehicles that meet the standards on both sides of the border to avoid driving up costs.
Our crash and emission standards do differ. Canada has stiffer bumper standards and slightly more lenient emission regulations than those in effect in several states. But the federal Environment Department is now proposing the industry design, build and sell vehicles by 2010 that are 25 per cent more fuel efficient than currently available.
The U.S. rules were enacted after the 1973-74 Arab oil embargo. Congress established Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards that are applied on a fleet-wide basis for each manufacturer selling vehicles in the United States. That fleet includes all passenger cars and light trucks produced, or imported, with a gross vehicle weight rating of 8,500 pounds or less. The fuel economy ratings for a manufacturer's entire line of passenger cars is currently 27.5 miles per gallon (8.5 litres/100 km). For light trucks, it is 20.7 mpg (11.4 L/100 km). Failure to meet these standards brings a fine of $5 per 0.1 mpg multiplied by the total number of vehicles produced.
CAFE standards are updated and become stiffer with each passing year. Total fleet economy peaked in 1987 at 26.2 mpg (9L/100 km) when light trucks made up only 28 per cent of the market. By 2001, they were 47 per cent of the market and the average had dropped to 24.4 mpg (9.6 L/100 km). They currently make up more than 50 per cent of the market and the average has slipped even lower.
The industry is saying the goals proposed by Ottawa cannot be reached because consumers prefer bigger, thirsty vehicles. It says it is producing incredibly efficient vehicles and that if more people bought hybrids and smaller fuel sippers, the fleet average would skyrocket. But in an open market, consumers get a choice and they choose not to buy these vehicles in sufficient numbers to make a difference. It is apparently easier politically to force an industry employing 50,000 to the wall, rather than anger an entire populace by raising fuel prices to the level that would force the purchase and use of smaller vehicles. Other alternatives used elsewhere to encourage purchase of efficient vehicles include tax breaks for their purchase and lower taxes on diesel fuel.
