Finance committee  What I have said is that one vehicle receives almost three-quarters of the rebates—one vehicle. It's not an advanced technology vehicle. It's not a vehicle produced in Canada, but one brought in from offshore. You have another vehicle that directly competes with that vehicle. And by the way, they're both made by recent entrants to Canada in manufacturing.

Finance committee  I don't think there's a contradiction. And perhaps I did not articulate the position well enough for you. But all the data show—and I can particularly cite data from Ontario, for instance, showing that when they introduced their tax for fuel conservation, it retarded new vehicle sales by upwards of 3%.

Finance committee  There's no good angle on this thing in terms of fixing it, in our mind. If we were to perhaps limit that rebate or that incentive to only domestically produced vehicles, then I would suggest it could raise some trade-related issues. It could be seen as a non-tariff barrier to trade, for instance.

Finance committee  You raise a lot of issues, and important ones. When you look at one-month sales like that, you really have to start looking into the longer trend. Clearly the rebate program, for instance, has shown that yes, for one vehicle in particular, again the one that I was referring to, it has generated huge volume sales increases.

Finance committee  In many respects, you're absolutely correct. The program, as it now stands, does penalize people who have legitimate needs for particular vehicles; in many respects, people who are in rural parts of this country have specific utility needs, so again there's a fairness issue there.

Finance committee  Thank you very much, Mr. Crête. Because this program is so flawed, our recommendation is that it be eliminated, that steps be taken to essentially phase out this program as quickly as possible. But in the meantime, make adjustments to the playing field between manufacturers and provide certainties to manufacturers for the 2008 model year.

Finance committee  Thank you, Mr. Chairman. CVMA membership includes DaimlerChrysler, Ford, General Motors, and International Truck and Engine Corporation. Our members account for roughly 70% of all vehicles assembled in Canada, 55% of the vehicles sold, and over 85% of all the automotive investment in Canada.

Bill C-30 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) committee  I'm not quite sure I understand the question. I don't think you're suggesting we should get rid of the MOU that we signed.

Bill C-30 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) committee  Regulatory speaking, I think we've categorically stated where we stand on that. We're an integrated industry. There are real benefits that can be derived to Canada. We have some of the best technology coming to Canada as a result of that, such as on our smog-related emission control systems, the most stringent national standards in the world.

Bill C-30 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) committee  First of all, I think I would agree with your initial statement. We can regulate fuel quality under CEPA. I don't know if you need the Clean Air Act or Bill C-30 to do that. Obviously, you could use it to regulate our fuel quality. The point, though, is that the technology requires appropriate fuels and fuel quality.

Bill C-30 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) committee  It's the same answer. Yes, it would apply. Under CEPA, though, blends may be a bit of an issue, and I would have to look into that. But I think if the intent under the Clean Air Act is to regulate blends, whether it be alcohol at E10 or E85, then we would support that.

Bill C-30 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) committee  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.

Bill C-30 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) committee  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?

Bill C-30 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) committee  Yes, the reformed CAFE.

Bill C-30 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) committee  It's 37 to one.