Feb 22
RIV and TC admit they are just a Puppet to the Car Manufacturers!
In Vafus list dated 2007-02-21 and appearing on 2007-02-22, Transport Canada and the RIV admit they are but “puppets” to the Car Manufacturers.
- Quote: Manufacturers of
- So why do they exist, they don’t do audits, they don’t check to see if the information they are given is true. Why don’t we as Canadians just accept the same Safety Standards as
- Minor changes to section 2
- Audi section replace “indicated” with ”informed us” ..??
- Ferrari, GM, Juguar, Suzuki, Volvo again, sections changed
- Section 5 pre-amble changes.
- Ford Mercury, Nissan , Toyota
You can see all the changes on the following PDF.
diff2008-002-06and2008-02-21.pdf
You can see the new list here.
February 22nd, 2008 at 3:42 pm
Transport Canada:
Reading your article prompts me to ask what is Transport Canada’s function.
It appears that they take no responsibility for anything period.
Their material must be written by Jay Leno.
Where were they when the 15 passenger van was allowed on the road in Bathurst new Brunswick.
They say that the Corvette 2008 bumper is a safety factor because it cannot pass the 8 kmph test.
Is there a parallel here. The rejection of the Corvette 2008 bumpers has nothing to do with safety. At 8kmph the damage would only be cosmetic.
Hello Transport Canada, is anybody home?
Do the right thing and release the 2008 Corvettes.
February 22nd, 2008 at 3:44 pm
Of course the U.S. manufacturers can not be forced to comply with TC’s
requests. But, the obvious (and fair) thing for TC to do in this situation
is decide that in the absence of clear and supportable rationale for
inadmissability, the vehicle will be considered admissable.
February 22nd, 2008 at 7:08 pm
I agree with Cy ,and I am sure many Canadians who felt the pain of that tragedy do as well.It seems to me that the American Auto Industry should send someone over to run for Prime Minister.Then they could really dictate the RIV list in a easier fashion in which they do now.
February 22nd, 2008 at 7:49 pm
Tim makes an excellent point.The manufacturers should be required to provide reasonable proof to back thier claims of non-admissability. Without that proof the vehicle in question should automatically be put on the admissale list.
February 22nd, 2008 at 8:05 pm
Yes, in a “perfect world” Rob’s idea above would work. But unfortunately in the “real world” where millions of dollars are at stake it is amazing as to what lengths these mega corporations will go to to protect their outrageous profits.
February 23rd, 2008 at 1:26 am
Robert
why not make more standard petitions, once every two months, and email it to all the persons interested. We will then send it the parties, TC minister etc. or come and sign up at CWB, after your request to read and sign if thou wish
keep sending the emails will keep some heat and visibility on the issue(s). Your efforts will be optimized as well as the reason to keep CWB will exist
if i get an email, popping in the front of my face and a request to send it off to TC , who is supposed to serve us, why not. The folks at TC will print the emails for being addressed to the Minister, who will then act on behalf of Canadians.
A lay man like me has very limited time to keep sievieing / sorting through the RIV list daily.
and when on earth does the government put something into effect without notice. This is a key question that bugs me. Even when a plot for changing from farmland to commercial needs a board / notice for several months. Even the beaver from the ground or the birds that fly by the notice can read it, hopefully. This RIV “subject to .. without notification” is very strange. How little time do i have to buy the car and get it across the border. Will the government official see how fast he can do it, say for himself. 3 and half days? for importation. Are we living in a democratic country or what.
February 23rd, 2008 at 2:26 am
Just talked to a retired Oshawa GM executive tonite. Discussed my GM pickup. I asked him directly why and if the car manufacturers actually directed the government and RIV to which cars and truck were admissable and also if they had to justify it. He replied no justification was needed and that the manufacturers actually controled Transport Canada and RIV.
With so much money involved in car mfg. and jobs in Canada, the government lets them do whatever they want. To me, it sounded like they run the government. I brought up the free trade agreement which would allow the ordinary Canadian to bring in duty free any commodity that was made in the US. He stated that Free Trade was only introduced for only the manufacturers due to again the money that they would make with free trade. We the common people were not to benefit from it. So, that is why all these road blocks we are encountering and continue to encounter are to stop us from benefitting from the free trade. I always knew BRIAN MULRONEY was a liar when he pushed the free trade agenda. Twenty years later after free trade was introduced or pushed upon us, we are seeing the effects of it. Roger
February 23rd, 2008 at 3:04 am
Again as I pointed out above in my point #5, IT’S ALL ABOUT THE MONEY and nothing else, irrespective whether it is fair or legal or otherwise.
February 23rd, 2008 at 3:35 pm
Bob, Mario,
I believe I may be able to offer insight into the latest change in the admissability list disclaimer. Please feel free to contact me at my e-mail address.
Thanks,
John
February 24th, 2008 at 7:17 pm
To The Honourable Lawrence Cannon:
I am writing to you today to demand fairness for all Canadian citizens. Cross border car shopping is obviously a prominent issue with Canadians today due to the countless news articles that highlight the significant disparities in car prices compared to our southerly neighbour. One only has to bring up two different automobile websites, one Canadian and one US to question why the gap is so large.
Recent actions by Canadian automakers though are distressing, as various roadblocks, some of them illegal, are being erected without proper accountability and government oversight.
Recently Canadian automakers and BMW in particular began erecting barriers to free trade by requiring potential importers to contact them directly for a “letter of admissibility”, to determine if the car is eligible to be imported into Canada 1. Inexplicably, you are required to pay $350 1 for this information which was previously posted for free just a few months ago 2 on the Registrar of Imported Vehicles (RIV.ca) website and still is posted for free for almost every other manufacturer 3.
Then, BMW and other manufacturers mandate that you perform various modifications costing up to thousands of dollars, only at their dealerships, otherwise they will withhold the necessary “recall clearance letter” which is required for registering your imported automobile 1. The modifications as mandated by Transport Canada and the RIV for importation are very minor modifications, with the only applicable modifications for the vast majority of cars being enabling day time running lights and having appropriate speedometer and odometer labels 4. These modifications for all other brands and all other vehicles simply consist of a relay switch for the daytime running lights and stickers to indicate the speedometer and odometer are in miles.
Canadian Tire can enable day time running lights at a cost of approximately $200, and they provide stickers to indicate that the units are in miles for free. In fact, Canadian Tire sells a $35 daytime running light kit that can self installed 5. On the other hand, BMW, in a perverse interpretation of the rules for their own benefit requires you to pay $1000 to $2000 to change your instrument cluster 1 to meet the same requirements that could be met for much less cost if BMW were not able to dictate that the modifications be performed only at BMW dealerships.
Clearly BMW is violating various rules with regards to competition and price fixing 6 while also engaging in unscrupulous corporate behaviour that is tantamount to extortion. The rules as set by the RIV clearly state that “you may have the modifications done by the mechanic or garage of your choice” 7. Why then is BMW allowed to mandate that work only be done at their dealerships? More importantly, why is our government allowing ordinary citizens to be held hostage to the demands of auto manufacturers such as BMW?
Of particular note, most BMW’s can have their daytime running lights programmed by the driver using the onboard computer at no cost and most BMW speedometers already have both miles and km displayed. What makes these actions particularly deplorable is that importers of BMW’s before November 2007 did not have to perform any of the newly mandated BMW modifications 2, and BMW changed their “rules” in the absence of change in regulations at either Transport Canada or RIV 7.
The final step of the importation process is obtaining a “recall clearance letter”, which is a letter that indicates that all safety recalls have been performed on the vehicle. This can be obtained for free from any other manufacturer but in BMW’s case you have to pay them $500 and wait 15-20 business days for a letter stating whether your car has had all recall work performed 1.
BMW’s charging of fees for a recall clearance letter appears to be illegal according to the rules of Transport Canada’s Motor Vehicle Safety Act, subsection 10.(1), Notice of Safety Defect 8, and is especially egregious as safety recalls may be a matter of life or death 9. The “Obligation to give notice” under the Act, states that the vehicle manufacturer is legally required to cause notice of the defect to be given in the prescribed manner to each current owner of such a vehicle.
The relevant section of the Act is pasted verbatim below:
NOTICE OF SAFETY DEFECTS 8
Obligation to give notice
10. (1) A company that manufactures, sells or imports any vehicle or equipment of a class for which standards are prescribed shall, on becoming aware of a defect in the design, construction or functioning of the vehicle or equipment that affects or is likely to affect the safety of any person, cause notice of the defect to be given in the prescribed manner to
(a) the Minister;
(b) each person who has obtained such a vehicle or equipment from the company; and
(c) each current owner of such a vehicle or equipment as determined
(i) from any warranty issued by the company with respect to the functioning of the vehicle or equipment that has, to its knowledge, been given, sold or transferred to the current owner,
(ii) in the case of a vehicle, from provincial motor vehicle registration records, or
(iii) in the case of equipment, from a registration system referred to in paragraph 5(1)(h).
In this matter of safety, BMW would be deemed to be violating the Act by effectively withholding this information due to their charging $500 for this requirement. Is it not the vehicle owner’s right to know if a potentially life-threatening safety recall is outstanding on the car that BMW is required by law to fix for free? Also, BMW’s waiting period of 15 to 20 business days for the recall letter is wholly unreasonable and is obviously an attempt to undermine the importation process.
Slowly more and more barriers to free trade are being erected to try to stem the tide of Canadian consumers who are unwilling to be gouged by the Canadian auto manufacturers. While the Canadian dollar has gained almost 20% in the last year, vehicle prices have only dropped by 2% 10, compared to a 12% drop in book prices 11.
In response, Canadian consumers are helping each other and banding together to fight these injustices. Take http://www.carswithoutborders.com as an example or Redflagdeals.com where 850 pages of comments and 1.5 million views from concerned Canadians indicate the depth of interest and conviction in this topic 12.
I ask only for fairness for all Canadian consumers, that any and all restrictions fabricated by the auto manufacturers on free trade and the importation of cars be removed, and that existing laws be enforced. The following areas need reform:
1. All vehicles should automatically be assumed to be admissible for import to Canada, except where the auto manufacturer can prove that it does not meet the required Canadian standards and where it can be prove that it would be impossible for the car to be modified to meet these requirements. In fact these rules are already written in section 7 of the Motor Vehicle Safety Act 8, where it states that:
“a vehicle that has been sold at the retail level in the United States and that fails to satisfy an applicable requirement of section 5 or 6 may be imported into Canada notwithstanding that section if the person importing the vehicle makes a declaration in the prescribed form and manner that, before the vehicle is presented for registration under the laws of a province, the vehicle
(a) will be made to conform to that requirement, and
(b) will be certified in the prescribed form and manner to so conform by such person as may be designated by the regulations.
This type of change is necessary to prevent unscrupulous auto manufacturers from determining their own rules on importation and free trade. At the very least, auto manufacturers should be prohibited from charging more than a fair and reasonable compensation amount for an admissibility letter, which should be capped at $25.
2. Furthermore, auto manufacturers should be prohibited from dictating that modification work only be performed at their dealerships, as that would be a violation of the Competition Act, various consumer protection laws and a violation of RIV importation and modification rules.
3. And lastly, it should go without saying that recall clearance letters should be provided for free in accordance with the Transport Canada Motor Vehicle Safety Act. Manufacturers such as BMW should be reminded of their legal obligations under the Act, and fines should be levied of $500 per day for failure to provide a recall clearance letter on request.
I applaud the Government’s previous amendments to the Motor Vehicle Safety Regulations to make it easier for Canadians to import vehicles from the United States 13, however much more enforcement and oversight is necessary to counter the illegal and unfair actions by the auto manufacturers.
Yours Sincerely,
cc: Pierre Tremblay, Transport Canada, Chief, Import and Audit Inspection
Kash Ram, Transport Canada, Director General, Road Safety and Motor Vehicle Regulation
Dan Davis, Transport Canada, Chief, Standards and Regulations
Jim Bain, Transport Canada, Chief, Compliance Engineering, Vehicle and Equipment Testing
References:
1 http://www.bmw.ca/content/pressReleases/can_us_faq_fs.asp?\
2 http://www.carswithoutborders.com/wordpress/wp-content/vafus2007-11-21.pdf
3 http://www.tc.gc.ca/roadsafety/importation/VAFUS/list/VAFUS.pdf
4 http://www.riv.ca/english/html/mod_inspect_requirements.html
5 http://www.canadiantire.ca/browse/product_detail.jsp?PRODUCT%3C%3Eprd_id=845524443278206&FOLDER%3C%3Efolder_id=1408474396673462&bmUID=1203891269097&deptid=1408474396672395&ctgrid=1408474396672397&subctgrid=1408474396673462
6 http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/showdoc/cs/C-34/bo-ga:l_VI//en#anchorbo-ga:l_VI
7 http://www.riv.ca/english/html/how_to_import.html
8 http://www.tc.gc.ca/acts-regulations/GENERAL/m/mvsa/act/mvsa.html#VEHICLE%20AND%20EQUIPMENT%20STANDARDS
9 http://www.tc.gc.ca/roadsafety/recalls/recall_e.asp?recno=8751&
10 http://www.reportonbusiness.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080222.wr-autos23/BNStory/robNews/home
11 http://www.pch.gc.ca/progs/ac-ca/progs/padie-bpidp/reports/rapport-report_2007/3_e.cfm
12 http://www.redflagdeals.com/forums/showthread.php?t=307601
13 http://www.tc.gc.ca/mediaroom/releases/nat/2007/07-h245e.htm
February 25th, 2008 at 2:01 am
Great read Eric. If only the manufaturers would put as much time and money into actually dealing with the pricing disparities rather than alienating Canadian consumers with false advertising and manipulating TC and the RIV against us all.
February 25th, 2008 at 4:53 am
Post #10 sums it all up. How about sending a copy to the editor of the Globe and Mail? Are there no investigative newspaper or tv reporters in this country?
February 25th, 2008 at 12:35 pm
Post #10 is well written and on the money! As for the most recent edition of the VAFUS, it would appear at a glance that the changes are CYA in nature. In the Notes section manufacturers have made specific requests whereas in previous issues it read as though RIV made requests. Hey, nothing wrong with a little clarity, right? I still believe, as I have commented before, that we have an opportunity to make U.S. vehicle importation an election issue. Have a good one, eh!
February 25th, 2008 at 11:35 pm
Why for heaven’s sake don’t you distrubute Eric’s letter to the press, OR let’s take a collection and publish a full page open letter to the Minister in the Globe and Mail. Let’s take up a collection for the full page add. $10 per reader of this site should more than cover it.
February 26th, 2008 at 10:30 am
I realize that collecting funds will require a lot of work for CWB but I’d more than willing to pay some money to see post #10 published. At this point, my only thought is that we’d have to get the post reviewed by a lawyer to absolutely guarantee we’re not in legal hot water with BMW in pointing out how they’ve been screwing/gouging importers of their cars.