Bill S-5 · 40th Parliament · Stephen Harper
Ensuring Safe Vehicles Imported from Mexico for Canadians Act
An Act to amend the Motor Vehicle Safety Act and the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999
Government bill. Became law.
- IntroducedApril 13, 2010
- Debated in principleMay 11, 2010
- Studied by a committeeDone
- Passed its first chamberJune 7, 2010
- Passed the second chamberDec. 16, 2010
- Became lawMarch 22, 2011
Leading supporters
Ranked by the part each played: who is responsible for the bill, who carried it, and who spoke for it most.
- Stephen HarperPrime Minister
- Michael L. MacDonaldSenate · Sponsor in the Senate
- Jim MalowayDescribes the bill's purpose to meet NAFTA obligations without objection.
- André Bellavanceviews the bill as a necessary formality to meet NAFTA obligations with no objections raised.
- Sukh Dhaliwalstates the bill clearly serves trade obligations and citizen safety with no changes sought.
- Peter Kentpresents the bill to meet NAFTA commitments while preserving safety and environment standards.
- Yasmin RatansiStates the bill's purpose is to ensure compliance with NAFTA trade obligations.
- Jean-Yves LaforestStates the Bloc Québécois is in favour of the bill and explains its importance for NAFTA compliance.
Who carries this bill
Arrows run from the person responsible to those who answer to them on this bill. The critic leads the Senate’s scrutiny and answers to no one on it.
What it set out to do
On 14 April 2010, the Leader of the Government in the Senate introduced Bill S-5, An Act to amend the Motor Vehicle Safety Act and the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 (Ensuring Safe Vehicles Imported from Mexico for Canadians Act), in the Senate and it was given first reading. Bill S-5 amends the Motor Vehicle Safety Act and the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 to allow, pending their inspection and certification, along with other certain conditions, the importation of certain used vehicles from Mexico and the United States in order for Canada to meet its free trade obligations.
Summary by the Library of Parliament.
Where members stand
How it changed on the way
80% of the text as introduced was changed or removed by the time it became law (979 words introduced, 666 passed).
minor changeintent kept
The bill passed with only minor technical adjustments to formatting, session numbering, and publication details. The core provisions allowing importation of prescribed vehicles from Mexico subject to inspection and certification remained unchanged from introduction to royal assent.
How precisely it is written
vagueChallenging the law: ModerateDisputing a charge: Moderate
The statute defines almost nothing itself and instead repeatedly refers to vehicles, periods, conditions, inspections and certifications that are prescribed or set by regulation. This leaves the actual scope of permitted imports to be settled later by officials rather than by clear statutory rules.
Open to argument
“"vehicle" means any vehicle that belongs to a prescribed class of vehicles.”
The central definition is entirely circular and depends on future regulatory prescription rather than any statutory criteria.“that is a prescribed vehicle from Mexico”
Eligibility turns on an undefined regulatory designation instead of objective statutory tests.“if the vehicle satisfies the conditions specified in the regulations, if any”
Core compliance requirements are not stated in the Act and may not even exist until regulations are made.“within the prescribed period, the vehicle will be made to conform”
Time limits and conformity steps are left wholly to regulation, creating no fixed statutory obligation.
Discretion. Nearly all operational detail, including which vehicles qualify, what conditions apply, who may certify, and when the Act starts, is left to the Governor in Council or designated regulators.
Challenging the law itself. Broad reliance on undefined 'prescribed' elements could support a vagueness argument under section 7 of the Charter if the scheme affects liberty or security interests.
Disputing a charge under it. An importer could readily argue that the regulatory conditions or certification steps were never clearly fixed or properly applied, since the Act itself supplies none of those details.
Read by a language model from the royal assent text; every quoted phrase appears in the bill. A reading of the drafting, not legal advice.
Did it work?
no evaluation found
Who lobbied on it
No lobbying registration naming this bill is loaded.
Stages and dates from LEGISinfo.