Debates of Dec. 6th, 2010

Ensuring Safe Vehicles Imported from Mexico for Canadians Act

[Lise Zarac, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my dear colleague mentioned a deadline of January 1, 2009. I would like to know what he thinks caused the delay.

[André Bellavance, Bloc, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her question. There could be a number of hypotheses here. However, as is the case with many bills that the government claims to want to pass through the House quickly, in many instances it was responsible for this because we had prorogations and elections even though the Prime Minister had promised that there would be fixed election dates. This ended up stalling a number of pieces of legislation.

I imagine that this bill was not a priority for the government, except that perhaps someone woke up and realized that we had signed an agreement with Mexico through NAFTA. For almost a year now, Mexico has been entitled to impose sanctions on Canada since we are not currently complying with the provisions of Appendix 300-A.1. The appendix clearly states that Canada must start to accept importations of used vehicles from Mexico.

Now that the government has woken up and realized that sanctions are possible, it wants to hurry up. There is no reason to be against this, but in many cases, with many bills that have been introduced, the Conservatives have no one to blame but themselves.

[Jim Maloway, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, we are looking at vehicles that are 10 years of age and older. If we look at the book value of 10-year-old vehicles, I really cannot see where we could be looking at more than $2,000 or slightly more for these types of vehicles. Therefore, I really do not see this as a huge problem. I know we need to pass the bill to be in compliance with the trade deals, and the NDP will support it going to committee, but I really cannot see where the market will be.

As we move forward over the next nine years, we are removing prohibitions on new vehicles and in another 10 years, 2019, when we can import vehicles that are one year old from Mexico then I can see potential problems.

The member talked about snow tire requirements in Quebec. The installation of immobilizers is mandatory in Manitoba. People cannot drive cars in Manitoba without immobilizers. To me, there are too many requirements to allow bringing 10-year-old cars and older to Canada in any great numbers a viable option.

[André Bellavance, Bloc, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I thank the member for his intervention. He has already spoken on this subject a few times since the debate on Bill S-5 began, and I listened carefully to his concerns, which I share, I might add. However, regarding some of the points he raised, this might not be the right forum, because in this case, it is merely a question of complying with NAFTA.

Regarding the used car market, I agree with the member in that I also do not expect our market to be flooded with used vehicles from Mexico. It is extremely important to bear in mind that the government has an obligation in all of this to ensure that strict regulations regarding the general state of repair of these vehicles and their harmful emissions are obeyed—which is what we want and will keep a close eye on.

Beyond that, with respect to winter tires, it is up to consumers to obey the Quebec law. The member mentioned a law in Manitoba. If I understood correctly, his concerns have to do with the immobilizer program, whereby a system is installed in vehicles in order immobilize the vehicle if it is stolen. Clearly, this has more to do with the aftermarket. That is another regulation with which car dealers and used car retailers must comply. In this case, we are talking about complying only with NAFTA, and we have no choice but to comply in order to avoid sanctions.

[Yasmin Ratansi, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Bill S-5 was introduced in the Senate on April 14 but this is part of NAFTA and NAFTA was signed approximately two decades ago. I am a little curious as to why this has been brought forward and needs to be passed so quickly when for 20 years it has probably not done anything. It has two sets of regulations that I can see, which are the safety regulations and environmental regulations, CEPA.

If used cars were to come into Canada and garages were to bring them up to standard, does the member not think that it would create jobs for us rather than having the cars dumped somewhere else and let the jobs drain away to somewhere else?

[André Bellavance, Bloc, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Mr. Speaker, some of my colleague's questions might be better answered by the minister of state, who spoke earlier. This is a Conservative government bill, so he should be answering some of her questions.

With respect to garages, of course they want more business inspecting cars. On the other hand, if more used vehicles are coming in from another country, maybe fewer vehicles from here will be sold. There might be some give and take. However, one thing we know for sure is that cars will have to be inspected. In that respect, my colleague is absolutely right. This already applies to heavy vehicles from other provinces and countries. People can even import vehicles from Europe. Those cars just have to comply with our regulations. Obviously, inspections are not performed by government employees in their offices. I mean no disrespect to government employees, but that is not where inspections happen. They happen in garages. So my colleague is right. Still, I do not think that this will create thousands and thousands of jobs.

In answer to her question about why the government is in such a hurry to pass this bill, I should point out that under NAFTA, initially, people were not to start importing used cars 10 years old or older from Mexico until January 1, 2009. So no government dropped the ball, except for the current government, which should have done something about this before 2009. If I am not mistaken, and if I can count, it is now 2010. That is about a year's delay. That is why the government is in such a hurry to pass this legislation.

[Keith Martin, Liberal, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have two questions for my colleague. First, does he not think there are better standards that could be applied for vehicle emissions that could be utilized?

Second, does he not believe that vehicle emissions standards could be done in a way that would provide better North American standards for our country as well as for the United States and Mexico?

[André Bellavance, Bloc, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will respond very quickly. I completely agree with the hon. member. We must be more and more strict in terms of vehicle emissions. As I said in my speech, some provinces, such as Quebec, have been making an effort, but, unfortunately, they have only studied the situation. The legislation has not yet been implemented. We want to start looking seriously at emissions, especially for older vehicles, even if it means taking vehicles off the road if they do not meet the stricter standards. Automobile manufacturers are able to produce vehicles that pollute less, and they have demonstrated that over the years. There is no reason for them to be lax.

[Jim Maloway, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today to Bill S-5, a bill coming from the Senate.

Bill S-5 is an Act to amend the Motor Vehicle Safety Act and the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999. Its short title is “ensuring safe vehicles imported from Mexico for Canadians act. It was introduced in the Senate on April 14, 2010. The bill would amend sections of the Motor Vehicles Safety Act and the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, to bring Canada into compliance with its international trade obligations, mainly under NAFTA.

As members know, NAFTA is a multilateral free trade agreement between Canada, the United States and Mexico. Its objectives are to eliminate trade barriers and facilitate cross-border movement of goods and services between the territories of the parties. Furthermore, NAFTA aims to promote fair competition in the free trade area, increase investment opportunities in the territories of the parties and create effective procedures for the agreement's implementation, application, joint administration and for the resolution of disputes.

Several members have already pointed out that this agreement is now two years late. Under the provisions of NAFTA, this particular element of allowing Mexican used cars to be brought into Canada should have occurred back in 2009. As I had indicated, the NDP will be supporting the bill going to committee because we recognize that it simply puts into effect promises that we have already made as a country when we signed into the trade agreements.

However, that does not stop us from having some observations and thoughts about the implementation of what we are approving and what we are signing into now. That will come with the regulations and rules that the government puts into place, as well the consultations, in promulgating the rules and satisfying the concerns of our constituent parts in Canada, like the motor vehicle dealers associations and many other groups in this country.

We look at this situation now and say that it is unlikely that there will be many vehicles being dealt with here. One of the members said that we were trying to hold off a free trade challenge by the Mexicans. and that is part of the equation.

While we do not anticipate a lot of 10-year-old vehicles being imported into Canada under this agreement, the provisions are there to eliminate, on a year-by-year basis over the next nine years, the barriers for newer vehicles. Therefore, in another year from now we will be able to bring in nine-year-old used vehicles. Then it will be eight, then seven and, by 2019, we will be able to bring in all used vehicles. When that happens, that may prove to be a much bigger group of vehicles when we are talking about one, two or three-year-old vehicles. The residual value of those newer vehicles would be much higher than a 10-year-old vehicle would be.

When the cost of upgrading all the safety features that need to be done, the immobilizers in the case of Manitoba and the very expensive cost of transportation from Mexico for used cars is added on, importing a 10-year-old vehicle might not make a lot of sense. When we get to one or two-year-old vehicles, especially high-value vehicles, it may become economically viable for importers to start bringing in vehicles on a fairly large scale.

Whether that creates jobs in Canada or not is really beside the point, because as the members have pointed out, this is part of our trade obligations. It is simply one of the implementation procedures of our trade agreement.

NAFTA, like all free trade agreements, establishes reciprocal rights and obligations for all parties to the agreement. Thus, any trade benefits or rights that are granted in the agreement apply to all parties.

Chapter 3 of NAFTA establishes the rules with respect to according national treatment to all goods of another party to the agreement and the elimination of all tariff and non-tariff measures against goods of another party.

Annex 300-A of chapter 3 applies to trade and investment in the automotive sector. Annex 300-A states that each party shall accord most-favoured nation treatment to all parties of NAFTA with regard to trade and investment in the automotive sector. However, this general commitment is subject to a number of commitments that are country specific.

The country-specific provisions entered into by Canada include that of the U.S. agreement concerning automotive products between the Government of Canada and the Government of the United States of America that will now be incorporated into NAFTA.

Furthermore, Canada reserves the right to adopt or maintain prohibitions or restrictions on imports of used vehicles from Mexico until, once again that date, January 1, 2009, with a gradual phase-out of prohibitions ending in 2019.

There are prohibitions and requirements that jurisdictions put on concerning environmental issues and safety issues, but jurisdictions also have tight rules to protect their own markets, to protect their own dealers' associations.

In a way, this is breaking down some of those barriers that were artificially put there to support local industry or support local dealer organizations in the past.

This is something that business will have to deal with over time, because it is phased in. I guess one could argue that the NAFTA agreement has been around for many years, so it should not come as a surprise to anybody out there in the public or in the dealers' associations that this is in fact coming.

I can guarantee, and I am sure the members on the government bench will recognize this, that when all is said and done and this bill actually passes through the House, there will be a reaction from dealers' organizations that are going to say they never saw this coming, it was out of the blue, and that the problem was created by the government, when in fact it is part of the free trade process.

The phase-out is related to the age of the vehicles. Used vehicles that are at least 10 years old are the first to have restrictions lifted. Younger vehicles will follow, as I have indicated, over a period of 10 years.

NAFTA also clarifies that these restrictions on imports of used vehicles from Mexico into Canada are not inconsistent with Canada's obligations to provide most-favoured nation treatment to Mexico under our agreements.

The purpose of Bill S-5 is to amend the Motor Vehicle Safety Act and the Canadian Environmental Protection Act to allow for the importation of used vehicles from Mexico subject to certain conditions. The amendments are required in order to bring Canada into compliance, as I said, with the international trade obligations under NAFTA that we have with Mexico.

Clause 2 of the bill amends the definition of “vehicle” to include “any vehicle that belongs to a prescribed class of vehicles”.

The “prescribed class” of vehicle is defined in the motor vehicle safety regulations as:

a class of vehicle listed in Schedule III [of the regulations] or the class of incomplete vehicle prescribed under subsection 4(1.1) [of the regulations];

I presume that another set of regulations will be promulgated as a result of and after the committee process. Unless we are led to believe that the regulations are all before us now and are already included here, I am really uncertain about that.

Once we have an opportunity to take a look at those regulations, we will be able to see possible limitations, impediments and problems with the whole system.

Clause 3 would amend section 7. Section 5 of the act currently requires that all vehicles sold in Canada and all vehicles of a prescribed class that are imported into Canada must conform with certain safety standards as set out in the regulations of the act. Section 7 permits an exception for used vehicles that are imported from the United States. That is certainly an expanding market, and I will get into that later.

The registrar of imported vehicles is a newer situation involving imported vehicles from the United States. The whole regime has been streamlined over the last few years to make it much easier for imported vehicles coming from the United States and we are seeing increasing numbers of them.

It really depends a lot on the value of the dollar. When the Canadian dollar strengthens, we will see more activity with respect to the cross-border purchase of cars in the United States. Just last year when the Canadian dollar was higher than the U.S. dollar, there was a huge amount of cross-border activity. People were buying cars in the United States because of the value of our dollar.

The people buying these cars in the United States have to deal with the registrar of imported vehicles in order to bring them back. While the system is much better than it was a number of years ago, snags are still being reported with these purchases.

I have heard stories about people who buy vehicles and then have to fill out a tremendous amount of paperwork. The paperwork is relatively easy to get. It is all on the website of the registrar of imported vehicles. The information can simply be printed out. The vehicle essentially gets impounded at the border, so it is tied up for a couple of days. If a purchaser can follow the paperwork, then it is possible to purchase vehicles in the United States. However, that does not make our local dealerships very happy.

Ways have been found to work around the problem with warranties. For example, a company such as Honda will not honour the warranty for a vehicle purchased in the United States. Even though an individual can save money by buying a vehicle in the United States because of the value of the Canadian dollar and the vehicle can be brought into Canada, the individual is on his or her own with respect to the warranty. Toyota's rules were similar in the past, but in the last couple of years its rules have changed and now it will honour warranties on Toyota products purchased in the United States using the registrar of imported vehicles system.

The member for Brandon—Souris was a reputable used car dealer in his youth. He is listening very intently. He is one of the few Conservatives who I would buy a used car from. He is an old friend of mine from Manitoba and very knowledgeable about the automobile industry. He has a soft spot for this topic because it takes him back to his younger days when he was in private business and probably enjoyed life more than he does right now. At least he did not have all the travelling that is involved with being an MP.

The section currently provides that used vehicles, vehicles that have been previously sold at the retail level in the United States that failed to meet the Canadian safety standards, must nonetheless be imported into Canada on the condition that the importer makes a declaration that before the vehicle is presented for registration, it will be made to conform with safety requirements. This exception allows importers of used vehicles from the United States time to bring the vehicles up to levels required by the more stringent Canadian safety standards.

I have mentioned this before, but in spite of all these rules between Canada and the United States, we still had a situation in Manitoba only a year ago, exposed by the CBC on a national program. Under the United States' lemon law system, which is a state-by-state regime, car companies in the United States were forced to buy back lemon vehicles from the owners if they were unable to resolve the issue after four attempts.

I never thought about what actually happens to these vehicles that are bought back by the manufacturers. The CBC found out last year that the cars were being taken from, for example, the state of Florida, which, by the way, used to have the strongest lemon law in the United States, and they were being dumped in, say, Louisiana, which did not have a very good lemon law system. Then the importers, in this case a Manitoba dealership that the member for Brandon—Souris knows and I know as well, were actually importing these cars into Canada for an absolutely ridiculous price, perhaps $13,000 for a two- or three-year-old vehicle, and then were able to mark them up by double. This was serious enough that not only did it make the national news, but the Manitoba government actually introduced legislation to deal with that particular issue. That, of course, caused me to want to encourage it to go further and set up its own lemon law system, on which I have been working with Manitoba for many years, unsuccessfully I might add, to get through. However, that is another issue.

The fact of the matter is that we can all have the frameworks we want for trying to deal with the market with the very best of intentions at heart, but people who want to bend rules will always find a way to do it. So we have to try to collectively put our heads together and come up with the best regulations possible to at least minimize the effect on our consumers in terms of bad outcomes. Bad outcomes, of course, are in many ways related to replaced odometers or rolled back odometers, which we saw in Manitoba for many years coming out of Toronto, taxis being sold at auctions and the cars being sent out to Winnipeg and the odometers rolled back.

As a matter of fact, it was the Filmon Conservative government, which the member opposite from Brandon—Souris was part of, that actually dealt with the problem. We had a dealer who, for the second time in 25 years, was charged under the Weights and Measures Act with systematically rolling back odometers. He was buying cars at auctions in Toronto, putting them on a train, taking them to Manitoba, rolling back or replacing the odometers, and then selling those cars, which he was buying for $4,000, for $8,000. He got caught 25 years ago and was charged under the Weights and Measures Act, which really did not impose much of a fine, I guess, because it did not deter him. He kept doing it for another 25 years, until he was caught again. Then, under the Filmon government, they finally dealt with the problem by requiring people to have a history that would follow the ownership of the car.

It is similar to the system used in England, I believe, where every time the ownership of a car changes, the documentation follows it. There would be a record of the mileage and stuff like that, so if all of a sudden the odometer showed the mileage as half of what it was before, it would be inconsistent.

That was an excellent system they developed and it did solve part of the problem.

However, people with ill intent always find ways to circumvent the rules, and of course, this would be something that we would have to deal with.

Having said all of that, though, I agree. We will be supporting getting this bill to committee, and from there we will see where it takes us.

[Paul Calandra, Conservative, Oak Ridges—Markham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I do want to take issue. The member for Brandon—Souris is not an old dealer. He is a young, vigorous member of Parliament who serves his constituents very well.

I wonder if the member would agree with me that if we have business people such as the member for Brandon—Souris, who was ethical, focused on his customers, conscientious and hard-working, the same qualities that he brings to the House of Commons when serving his constituents, Canadian consumers would be very well protected in their purchases, if they all had the pleasure of experiencing the quality and ethical service that the member for Brandon—Souris brought to his business, and of course, brings here to the House of Commons.

[Jim Maloway, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Brandon—Souris had an excellent record and, as I have indicated, I would buy a used car from him.

Unfortunately some of his fellow members were not as ethical. As I explained, we had a situation where a certain small dealer in the province was rolling back odometers, buying the vehicles in Toronto at the auctions for $4,000, shipping them to Manitoba, rolling them back to 80,000 kilometres and then selling these cars routinely for $8,000, doubling his profit. He was selling perhaps one a week. He would be making $4,000 clear a week, which is not bad money for a one or two person operation.

He was not the only one doing this. A number of people were doing it. He did this after being caught and charged under weights and measures 25 years before. He continued doing this right out in the open for 25 years until he got caught again. Then the government did something about it and it cut it down. This was a number of years ago.

Last year CBC exposed this. When a person buys a new car in the United States, it is under the lemon law acts of the states. The car companies have to purchase these cars back from the owners if they cannot fix the problem after four times. These new cars were being sold by these companies into states with poorer lemon laws and they were being imported into Canada. The dealers who were bringing them in were buying them for $13,000 and selling them for $25,000, making huge profits.

Clearly something is not quite right. Together with the provinces we have to work out better systems to deal with these issues.

[Keith Martin, Liberal, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask my colleague a question that relates to trafficking of cars, which is often related to organized crime gangs and trafficking of drugs. These are products that organized crime gangs use to generate funds for their illicit activities.

There is an enormous need for the government to work more closely with the not only the RCMP in Canada with the RCMP but also with Interpol to deal with the trafficking and activities of organized crime gangs.

One of the issues is the sharing of information. Interpol has indicated that it would like Canada to take a much greater role, to work with Interpol to share information. Only by sharing information will we be able to have a more effective approach to dealing with the transnational organized crime gangs that are so parasitic in our world.

This is not only a role which we can do with Interpol, but also internationally, with Canada taking a lead role and trying to encourage other members of Interpol to work more closely together with the information sharing aspect.

Does my colleague think we should ask our government to take this opportunity to work more closely with Interpol and help it overcome some of the structural barriers it has in being able to be a more effective agent to deal with organized crime gangs?

[Jim Maloway, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I remind the member that we dealt with this issue just a while back.

The issue was promoted by the Government of Manitoba to make vehicle theft a more serious crime. In the bill we dealt with the issue of VIN numbers and making it illegal to change those numbers.

As the member knows, the VIN numbers are on several parts of the vehicle. They are on the door, the motor, the dash and I believe in the trunk. There are about four or five places on a vehicle.

When the thieves steal these vehicles, they replace the VIN numbers. Now the VIN numbers are being manufactured into the vehicles so they cannot be changed and the government is passing a law to make it illegal to tamper with a VIN number, which is one way of dealing with the issue.

However, there are a number of ways in which these crooks operate and one is to steal the whole vehicle and take it out of the country.

Another type of activity is a chop shop operation. The crooks steal the vehicles and take the vehicles apart in pieces. We find that with Harley-Davidson motorcycles mainly but others as well where they take them apart.

The member is absolutely right. We are talking about criminal gangs and the government has to get tough on white collar crime, chase these criminals and cut off the money supply. Once we cut off the money supply, the problem solves itself.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as we know, this bill relates to NAFTA and compliances that we thought might have been taken care of back when NAFTA was negotiated, going back to 1992.

One of the concerns we had at the time was environmental regulation. We now see a government going to Cancun without a lot in the tank. I wonder whether the timing is a coincidence and that this will be seen as its offering to environmental standards. In fact, this is really a fig leaf for a lack of any kind of real environmental policy. Clearly this should have been done long ago.

Why is the government bringing it up now? Does he think that there might be something more to it than just what we are seeing in front of us today?

[Jim Maloway, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, we would have to check the blues from the parliamentary secretary's speech earlier, but it seems to me that this requirement will initially allow vehicles that are 10 years old and older to be brought in. Then vehicles less than 10 years old will be phased in up to 2019. Those vehicles will all to have emission and safety standards complied with. However, interestingly enough, vehicles that are over 15 years old are considered vintage vehicles and they do not have to comply with any safety requirements or environmental standards whatsoever.

I guess the people in Cancun right now would be sort of interested. We should send them a fax and let them know what the government is up to up here. It is going to allow any vehicle that is over 15 years old to be brought into the country with no emission standards required.

[Yasmin Ratansi, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise, on behalf of the Liberal Party, to speak to Bill S-5, An Act to amend the Motor Vehicle Safety Act and the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999. The short title of the bill is “Ensuring Safe Vehicles Imported from Mexico for Canadians Act”.

This was introduced in the Senate on April 14. The purpose of the bill is to amend the Motor Vehicle Safety Act and the Canadian Environment Protection Act to allow for the importation of used vehicles from Mexico, subject to certain conditions. These amendments are necessary to ensure that Canada is in compliance with its international trade obligations under NAFTA.

Everyone knows what NAFTA is. It is the free trade agreement that was signed between Canada, the United States and Mexico. Its objectives were to eliminate trade barriers and facilitate cross-border movement of goods. NAFTA, like all free trade agreements, establishes reciprocal rights and obligations for all parties to the agreement. Thus any trade benefit or rights that are granted in the agreement apply to all parties.

There has been some inconsistency or incongruity in the application of NAFTA where it concerns Mexico. There are some amendments to the Motor Vehicle Safety Act which would allow for used vehicles from the United States, previously sold at the retail value in the United States, that failed to meet the Canadian safety standards, to be imported into Canada on condition that the person importing the car would make a declaration that before the vehicle would be presented for registration, it would be made to conform with safety requirements. This is to allow importers of used vehicles from the United States the time to bring their vehicles up to the stringent Canadian safety standards.

The amendment to this section therefore would also extend to importation of used vehicles from Mexico that fail to meet Canadian safety standard requirements. These are important because there have been restrictions on vehicles from Mexico and not from the United States. As a partner of NAFTA, this will provide the mechanism to ensure vehicles that are sold in Canada meet Canadian safety requirements.

Bill S-5 would also amend the Canadian Environment Protection Act to allow for the importation of used vehicles from Mexico with certain conditions applied. The CEPA is necessary because any vehicle that comes into Canada has to meet our CEPA standards.

Simply put, Bill S-5 would bring Canada into compliance with its NAFTA obligation regarding the importation of used cars from Mexico. Although NAFTA was signed approximately two decades ago, several provisions were delayed. This is one of those provisions. When NAFTA was signed, Canada reserved the right to maintain all our restrictions on used vehicles until January 1, 2009. Since then, we have embarked on a 10 year process to phase out all of Canada's restrictions.

Currently, when used vehicles are imported into Canada from the United States, they do not have to meet our environmental and safety standards as they cross the border. However, as I mentioned, the owner must commit to ensuring that before he or she registers and licenses the vehicle, the necessary repairs and upgrades have been made so the vehicle is compliant. This is a really straightforward concept. We do not want cars that keep on emitting greenhouse gases because they have not been properly maintained. I listened to the debate and presentations on this.

We have problems in the third world, for example, with recycled and reconditioned cars. In Japan, for example, where after four years a car cannot be utilized and must be disposed of, those cars are reconditioned and sent off to third world countries. The cycle of cars going from one country to another without meeting proper environmental standards is problematic for us if we do not enforce the legislation.

The legislation would rectify an incongruity. The odd thing about that is that permission was not granted to vehicles imported from Mexico despite the fact that it is a NAFTA partner, so Bill S-5 attempts to rectify the incongruity.

The bill deals with two sets of regulations, the Canada vehicle safety regulation and Canada's environmental regulations, both of which are critical for the safe and clean operation of motor vehicles in Canada. Used vehicles imported into Canada from any location must meet both our safety and environmental regulations. I do not think anyone in the House would oppose this type of regulation. However, I would argue that it makes sense for us to allow the importers of these used vehicles to bring them into Canada for the upgrades necessary to bring them up to standard.

If our laws continue to prevent that work from being done in Canada, we would be punishing our auto mechanics. If used cars are at our borders, and we are not saying there are thousands of vehicles at the borders, and we allow the Mexican businesses to look after it, we would lose a lot of ground for our own auto mechanics. As part of NAFTA, we cannot give up that portion of the job creation that we would have. Plus, we have environmental standards that need to be met and our environmental standards are probably not the same as the ones in Mexico.

I believe it is an important aspect that those vehicles should come here for upgrades instead of allowing the advantage to go to some other country.

What I do not understand is why it took the government so long to introduce the measure because, as I mentioned, it was January 1, 2009 when we were supposed to implement the restrictions on used vehicles and it has taken until 2010 for the government to bring about these changes. The delay cannot be attributed to the opposition. Sometimes the government has a tendency to say that every delay on every bill is an opposition problem and because it was introduced late in the Senate, we need to move it quickly to ensure that it can go to committee for a better review.

What are the implications of the bill? The obvious implication of the bill is that the Canadian market may see more used cars from Mexico for sale domestically as a consequence of the increased liberalization of trade in used vehicles. The bill, however, proposes amendments to these two pieces of legislation in order to maintain a consistency in the level and safety standards of all vehicles being used in Canada regardless of whether they are used or whether they have been imported from the United States or Mexico.

If we look at what the stakeholders have said, the Imported Vehicle Owner's Association of Canada, which claims to represent hundreds of businesses and thousands of individuals who import vehicles into Canada, it indicated that it was in support of this amendment. The Canadian Vehicle Manufacturers Association has yet to present its views on this. If we are to ensure safety, consistency and congruence with NAFTA, I would like to see that the bill goes to committee.

It is important that Canada live up to its NAFTA commitments. There is no evidence to suggest there is a caravan of dirty, unsafe Mexican cars waiting at our borders. Bill S-5 would not weaken our environmental or safety laws but we need to send it to committee to ensure that a thorough analysis is done. We should let the committee do its job and listen to various witnesses.

[Keith Martin, Liberal, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague comes from a city where organized crime has taken root, as it has across our country. It is a very serious problem in her city, as it is for all of us.

Does my colleague think that the Government of Canada should be taking a much more intelligent view with respect to crime, particularly organized crime? It is not doing as much as it ought to be doing to address organized crime, which is a very serious problem.

Police agencies, particularly the RCMP, try very hard to deal with this problem. They are labouring under some fairly archaic rules and regulations. One thing the government could do is work with the RCMP more closely and ask front-line officers what they need to conduct proper, effective investigations to build cases against these individuals and bring them to trial.

Does my friend think that the Government of Canada should be taking a smarter view to deal with crime? Does she think that one thing it could be doing is listening to the grassroots RCMP officers on the ground about the challenges they are facing and deal with their unmet needs?

[Yasmin Ratansi, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I did not mention it in my speech, but carjacking and car theft is a very lucrative business in some of the urban centres and maybe in the rural centres. It is a very dangerous business. High-end cars are being carjacked and stolen. There is a perception that organized crime is behind high-end carjackings.

Though the RCMP is trying its best, it needs resources, more police officers and laws it can enforce. It is sad that when perpetrators are found, the gangs cannot be broken because of archaic laws or lack of resources for a cohesive strategy. A car that is carjacked in Toronto could end up in Mexico or China, and vice versa. Police need the resources globally to address this problem.

[André Bellavance, Bloc, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the member the same question that she asked me when I spoke about the bill. Why does she feel that it took the government so long to come up with legislation? The Conservative government is always in a rush. It pressures the opposition parties and even accuses them of not acting quickly enough when it comes to its bills. It bogs down some committees with bills, specifically justice bills. What does she think are the Conservative government's reasons for being so pushy?

[Yasmin Ratansi, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I know that in many committees Conservative members have been filibustering. There has been a lack of co-operation. If the government really thinks a bill is important, it has to work on it. It has to be smart on crime. In January 2009 it had an opportunity to introduce amendments to the bill and it has taken until just recently for the government to do it. Why does it want to hurry bills through?

It would have been better for the member to pose the question to the minister himself. Why is it that the Conservatives are in a hurry to pass everything? Are they trying to prove to Canadians that they have been able to pass legislation? Legislation cannot be passed without proper due process, but the government has the habit of bypassing due process in an effort to show that it was able to pass certain bills.

It is high time this problem were resolved. We should not pass bills just for the sake of it. We should send them to committee for better review.

[Alan Tonks, Liberal, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there are two components to the bill. There is the component with respect to the safety of vehicles that are going across borders from Mexico to Canada and Canada to Mexico. The second part is the vehicles that are being transported by organized crime.

My colleague mentioned the lack of police resources both in Mexico and Canada for the whole issue of trans-border shipment of vehicles that are in the category of proceeds of crime. When they are finally apprehended and the vehicles are returned to their owners, safe or not, the issue becomes how we mobilize our resources to follow up in the public's interest.

Should there be a parallel legislative approach that would toughen up and make more secure the proceeds of crime legislation? In order for law enforcement agencies to track these vehicles and the criminal parties involved, they need the resources to do that job for both the unsafe vehicles and those that have been transported illegally.

[Yasmin Ratansi, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's question brings a very important aspect to bear. Organized crime is quite lucrative and very nimble. It beats out police resources.

The police are bogged down with legislation that does not help them become nimble. As they do not have the resources to be as nimble, the fact they can even catch them is a miracle in itself. There has to be tougher legislation on the proceeds from crime.

It is important that when this bill is reviewed by committee that safety and environmental standards are looked at. This is an aspect that is critical for Canada. We are talking about greenhouse gas emissions, et cetera, and we need to ensure that the safety standards Canada has are high quality and that Mexico and others follow it.

To answer the member's question, yes, we need to have strong legislation.

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Mr. Speaker, all of the speeches that were given today certainly indicate that members are in favour of moving this legislation along. Of course, it is long overdue. NAFTA was put in place quite a while back and this is just an entity to move us a little closer to what NAFTA actually directed people to do.

At the end of the day, we heard the government side trying to boast that this was almost a climate change bill. I am assuming the government brought this before the House because it is on its way to Cancun. It would have been much better for the government to go to Cancun with Bill C-311, the climate change accountability bill. I am sure that my colleague would support my comment that that would have been a better bill to be going to Cancun with.

Could the member elaborate on the fact that this would create jobs in Canada when we put this forward?

[Yasmin Ratansi, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with my colleague that this is not a climate change bill. It brings congruence in NAFTA between how we treat the United States and how we treat Mexico.

We should be getting cars over here and ensure that our automotive sector and our mechanics get the jobs rather than see those jobs go somewhere else.

Hopefully, the committee will discuss these issues very thoroughly before it makes a decision.

[The Deputy Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

Is the House ready for the question?