Nov 20
CWB & Fair Pricing
Background
- In all, up to 1500 Canadians that had purchased automobiles in the
- They were told they “went through a red light!”
-
Prior to that
-
The article ran across the country and
- Serge, in the same boat, as
- Serge and
Accomplishments
-
- All along though, key Government officials would not acknowledge that the law would pass,
-
Finally On December 19th,
- Early in the New Year Serge and
- Many outstanding issues remained, including last but not least the ability of Canadian and American Car manufacturers to follow a “self-compliant” regime that if abused would essentially lock out Canadians from purchasing American market automobiles.
-
At the same time in January, some Canadian Car Manufacturers started offering significant rebates to Canadians. Sales were slowing down, now they were prepared to offer Canadians “a new deal” or “no customs required”. Of course many of these ads appear to be very deceptive and the pricing differences are not really significant given the pending recession in the
Thanks
Robert and Serge
-
Updated January 12, 08
The Future
November 24th, 2007 at 7:16 pm
It is apparent that several manufacturers are using the CDN specification issue as one strategy to inconvenience Canadians and hopefully reduce the importing activity as they are clearly having difficulty restricting sales from their US dealers. It may also be true that some CDN politicians, gov’t bureaucrats, and unions have the misguided view that this activity adversly affects jobs in Canada. Regardless, the publicity and this excellent web site may inadvertantly have the effect of causing Canadians to reconsider the idea of importing a car. After all, most of us do not have the time to travel to the US if we cannot get the car approved in a reasonable time and cost.
It is also interesting to consider the future loss of service and parts income (not to mention good will) that some manufacturers are willing to incur in their effort to protect their excess profit margins in Canada. I have read that Canada represents approx 3% of world wide markets for the manufacturers versus ~30% for the US. I presume this CDN issue only warrants a short memo or e-mail to the responsible executive at some of the foreign manufacturers. In others words, the foreign manfacturers simply do not care about CDN’s compared to the recent depreciation of the $USD and the loss in profits when converted to their own currency. I do feel for the CDN car salesperson when buyers continually remind them of the pricing differential (OK, not really!).
In any event, one idea for your group and the CDN Gov’t to consider is to allow all auto’s that conform to US law into Canada. However, in order to encourage Canadians to comply with unique CDN requirements including daylight running lights and Vehicle Immobilization Systems (among other unique CDN requirements) there would be specific “equipment bond” regarding each specification for each model. For example, if a car does not have daylight running lights the equipment bond paid at the border upon importation might be $1,000. The equipent bond would be only refunded to the importer upon the importer providing an approved inspection certificate from Canadian Tire. In this manner, cars would not be hung up by the CDN requirements and could be driven immediately. Importers would have a significant financial incentive to complete the modifications ASAP. The equipment bond amount could be established at say triple the estimated cost to encourage compliance. A web site could be easily established by the gov’t with the make, model, S/N and work required / completed for all imported cars. This way, buyers of imported cars would be able to confirm the work was completed by going to the web site. If not, they (or car dealer) would be able to complete the work and claim the equipment bond.
Another issue that seems ridiculous is that Transport Canada are allowing the manufacturers to “require” that all work be done at their dealerships. I presume manufacturers argue that it should be done this way to preserve warranties, safety, etc. This, of course, is garbage! I would argue this is another part of their strategy to inflict as much inconveinence and cost to the importer as they can get away with and push the work to their dealer network. There are thousands of qualified repair shops across Canada that can complete the work at much lower cost to the importer.
In summary, it seems to me that your group should consider presenting some ideas / options for government to consider to resolve this mess as quickly as possible. Otherwise we are going to end up with another gun registry mess with thousands of new government employees and a Ministry of Auto Imports. Just be grateful the Liberals are not in power or that is what could happen!
November 27th, 2007 at 12:15 pm
I have sent two e-mails to RIV; so far have had one bureaucratic boilerplate reply that totally evaded my substantive question on fitting third party immobilisers.
Lets face it — RIV is there precisely so that Transport Canada does not have to deal with individual car importers. TC makes the rules and pronounces which cars can and cannot be imported, but nowhere does it offer any information on the basis for its decisions.
Interestingly CBSA has posted Memorandum D9-1-11:
http://www.cbsa.gc.ca/E/pub/cm/d9-1-11/d9-1-11-e.html
which lays out some exemptions for importers of “second hand vehicles” which just happen to include any vehicle bought at retail, i.e. that car you just bought across the border and drove up to Customs.
I have asked the RIV how vehicles exempt under this memorandum (bequests, settlers, gifts, returning residents and best of all bought NEW in a previous year and imported for personal use) are processed several days ago — still waiting for reply.
I am quite sure that this memorandum trumps the TC list of admissable vehicles as otherwise there would be a bunch of hardship cases.
An extreme measure would be to find a junker in Canada, drive it to the US and irreparably wreck it — releasing the brakes at a salt water boat launch ramp would do the trick.
November 27th, 2007 at 12:18 pm
My previous comment ommited:
If you total a car outside Canada, you are allowed to import a replacement vehicle.
November 27th, 2007 at 1:12 pm
I spoke to woman at Transport Canada once I found out my Form 2 was not coming and my 08 Toyota Tundra is now inadmissible. TC told me the manufacturers give them a list of their vehicles they will not allow. Way to go Government let them police themselves!!
TC could not tell me why it is on the list and that the manufacturers do not need to give them a reason to place it on the list!! Wow!
November 28th, 2007 at 2:05 pm
Given Transport Canada is supposedly in the process of reviewing import rules/requirements,
does anybody find it odd that they continue to modify the RIV list/verbage (Nov. 27th update)?
Given the total lack of clarity and direction going forward, why not leave the list ‘as is’
until they (TC) come to some sort of resolution?
November 28th, 2007 at 6:04 pm
I am happy to announce that I think we are flying to Michigan to pick up our truck next week. All of this hoopla is regarding an immobilizer device. We had the US dealer check our truck and give us that part number. For the GMC Sierra 2500HD Duramax the part #15845229 in case anyone needs to know. I have called my General Mortors dealership here in Canada, St Albert to be exact and they have confirmed that it is the same part number of the device here that is on its Canadian version of the truck.
Just to be sure that ours has the CSA approval, we are going to have the $200 part reinstalled on our truck, even though its the same one thats already on there. Just to proove Transport Canada that they are liars, and that they are not admitting my truck because of other reasons. How can they deny my truck if it’s got the part installed by a certified dealership? I will remortgage my house to hire a lawyer to sue the government if they do, because I have complied with every single thing they asked.
Get the part # people….call your dealships and ask if they can install it. If they can…that means you’ve complied with Transport Canada.
Get the immobilizer part numbers people…check with the Canadian counterpart…its probably the same, and they can probably reinstall and program the same part.
November 29th, 2007 at 11:55 am
Sure would have been simpler to buy the vehicle in St Albert.
November 29th, 2007 at 12:15 pm
Firstly please do not publish comments from people like Colin as he is a typical lemming who is happy to pay to much. To Sarah and Shaun you guys go but be for warned just because the part numbers are the same the system may still not be compliant. things like mounting / brackets / plugs ect. are all inclusive. The same part numbers alone will not help you with the DOT. I feel you will be at the mercy of the system which needs to be fixed properly first. But if you do get a lawyer who thinks he can handle this please post him and what he feels he can do for you. The pressure must be kept up on the ministers office and DOT do not lose sight of this fact.
November 29th, 2007 at 12:43 pm
Hey Colin, yes it was much easier. I just spent $77000 dollars at that exact dealer in March on a Denali. Didnt want to get ripped off yet again. Can you please tell me where you work, because I need your job…obviously you make so much money that you can afford to pay $30000 extra for the same truck here.
November 29th, 2007 at 1:14 pm
Colin is probably a St Albert GM Salesman.
I leave daily messages for Andrew Walasuk, Special Assistant to the Minister 613 991 0700 and Pierre Tremblay Chief Import and Audit Inspection 613 998 2225. Stop wasting your time phoning RIV and TC agents who give you the boiler plate party line and start phoning these two officials and your MP daily.
November 29th, 2007 at 5:23 pm
Hi - In response to Sarah, I feel badly for her but I don’t think it’s the government you should be suing, and I don’t think Transport Canada is doing the lying. I know it’s always easiest to blame the government but I think the problem here is simply the parent companies lying to force us to buy Canadian. The gov’t has had this legislation coming for four years; the reason it’s such a big issue now is because our $ is so strong and people are looking south. I wish the gov’t was moving faster but it seems to me that it’s the companies that are being sneaky, not the gov’t. So Sarah…. maybe redirect your lawsuit? Rage is ok but it’s most effective when channelled appropriately. My two cents.
November 29th, 2007 at 6:18 pm
I believe the issue is Transport Canada has not developed a test to determine compliance with CMVSS 114; therefore manufacturers who have been allowed to self-certify have never had a test to verify compliance. If there was a test then CANADIAN TIRE could verify compliance or the selling dealer could verify compliance. I have written to all the Honourable Ministers and TC and they refuse to discuss this issue. I would not want to be a manufacturer of CMVSS 114 compliant aftermarket immobilizers as GM and others have declared their vehicles are unsafe if the aftermarket CMVSS 114 immobilizers are installed. Logic dictates a GM vehicle manufactured prior to September 1, 2007 would be also be rendered unsafe if an aftermarket CMVSS 114 immobilizer system was installed. I think Transport Canada will have to ban installation of aftermarket immobilizer systems in all GM vehicles given that GM has advised their post September 1, 2007 vehicles will be unsafe if an aftermarket system were to be installed.
Of course, someone might ask if there was evidence the inadmissible vehicles were actually rendered unsafe i.e. GM had verified their vehicles were unsafe after an aftermarket CMVSS 114 compliant immobilizer was installed.
November 29th, 2007 at 6:46 pm
I disagree with David’s remarks. The problem here is that the onus that a vehicle meets or does not meet Canadian compliance standards is right now is with the manufacturer. We need a referee and it appears that Transport Canada does not have the expertise to act in this area, despite the fact that the CMVSS regulations are Canadian. Also, I think we need TC management direction here and yes Mr Cannon we need you to present this case to the next meeting of Cabinet and recommend an Order-in-Council to rescind these CMVSS 114 regulations.
November 29th, 2007 at 10:38 pm
Tim do you work for GM? cause it very much sounds like it
November 29th, 2007 at 11:01 pm
I spoke to GM people in Detroit and in Oshawa, they both told me that the GM’s Cadillac Escalade has the same anti theft device PASS KEY 111+. Also the Owner’s Manual for the U.S. Truck and the Canadian Truck indicates that it is the same PASS KEY 111+ anti theft system. This is just a smoke screen created by manufacturers to confuse the consumer, we can’t let them get away with this………….
November 29th, 2007 at 11:05 pm
Dear All,
I have an even better scenario for you all, in my garage sits a U.S. 2008 Chevrolet Corvette convertible that was built during the week of July 16, 2007, allowed entry into this “fair” land of ours on August 13, 2007. All U.S. 2008 Corvettes have immobilizer devices as standard equipment, as well as daytime running lights, bilingual sun visor stickers and metric displays. But because G.M. Canada “decided”, two months after my car entered Canada, that all 2008 U.S. Corvettes are inadmissible irregardless of what date they were manufactured, there my car sits. The only inadmissible feature that I can see is the necessary conversion to the 5 MPH bumpers from the 3 MPH bumpers (a $1100 dealer modification - another “bogus” GM roadblock). Oh, I almost forgot, there is one small thing - the fact that the identical car in Canada is $30,000 - $35,000 more expensive!!
If there are any lawyers out there reading this, who want to make a name for themselves please respond to this message.
November 30th, 2007 at 1:03 am
In Reply to David’s “it’s not the government”:
I disagree. The Government controls the RIV list. The RIV list changes in ways besides moving cars from admissible to inadmissible on whim. The one that I’m affected by is the changes to BMW. The Nov 23rd lists all BMWs 2002-2008 with the exception of 3 specific models-years as admissible given it fulfills the requirements stated earlier (DRLs, child seat bolt etc.) The Nov 26th list changes completely. It’s a massive paragraph which to summarize - everything must be decided by BMW Canada, every modification must be done by BMW Canada. Your admissibility is no longer about safety, it’s what BMW Canada decides.
Who decided to change the list like this? Did BMW Canada login and modify the document. I think and hope not. The government i.e. Transport Canada changed it. If they are just listening to what ever the manufacturers are saying it is still the government’s fault for blindly listening to them. Refusing the apply the rules based on the day the vehicle was purchased is also the government’s choice. I think there would be far less anger and problems if they took that route. People can be warned - check the rules the day you sign the contract and if you don’t well, it’s your own fault. The problem is it doesn’t matter whether you do your homework or not. The crazy drunk father known as the Government is still going to beat the crap out of you just cause.
So David, it is the government.
November 30th, 2007 at 6:26 am
Of course it is the government, but in this case they have become smarter - perhaps learning from the gun registry fiasco. Instead of them (Transport Canada) doing the “dirty work” they have created an entity such as the RIV - who is basically a division of Livingston Custom Brokers under contract to Transport Canada. This way if things get too controversial the RIV will take the heat. If the government and the automakers think that the public is so naive then they have really missed the ball on this latest disaster. If this whole issue is not solved real soon, there will be serious repercussions during the next federal election.
November 30th, 2007 at 9:45 am
Letter from GM Canada
We acknowledge receipt of your e-mail and appreciate the time you have taken to communicate with us.
Laura Shepel
Internet Correspondent
http://www.gmcanada.com
Letter To GM Canada
Subject: I am a current owner and have a question, concern, comment or compliment.
To whom it may concern:
I’ve been the proud owner of may GM products for a many years now and I currently own a 2005 GMC sierra and a 2007 yukon. I’ve purchased an additional 2008 GMC Sierra in the States because of the better pricing and now because the Transport Canada’s change in admissable trucks I have to keep it in the US until I’m advised on what people whom ordered trucks before the change of admissable trucks are to do. I know this is GM doing everything they can to prevent Canadians from saving a buck. You tryed to prevent us from purchasing in the US by telling the dealers not to sell to Canadians and that didnt work and now you’ve told Transport Canada that your US trucks don’t meet our standards. Find that hard to believe, anyways just for your information, if I don’t get this new truck here and register it I will make sure myself and anyone I can prevent, never purchase another product of GM.
The Lesson of the day is to Boycott GM Canada, Honda, Toyota and any manufacturer involved, if they cannot sell vehicles here they be forced to lower prices and be competative with their US counter part. No offence to the dealers but the way I see it they should be on our side too. We’ve all spent our hard earned money on high priced vehicles for many years now, we deserve change.
November 30th, 2007 at 1:03 pm
In response to David….I dont pay my taxes to GM to protect my rights, I pay my taxes to the government. Im not implying that Transport Canada is lying to anyone. What my problem with TC and the gov’t is, they made a set of rules, and made a retro active change, leaving thousands of us at a financial loss. Had TC made us aware back in June, July, August…anytime, that there is a possible change in the works, and some makes and models of US vehicles may not meet canadian standards, then mabye we wouldnt have bought our truck.
It was Transport Canada, and The Registar of Imported Vehicles that I called to confirm my truck was admissable. General motors didnt tell me that truck was ok…so how would GM be responsible for what TC and the RIV told me? They’re not.
We can agree to disagree, and im entitled to my opinion.
November 30th, 2007 at 2:32 pm
You may want to read the following from the Canada Gazette dated Dec1, 2007:
Regulations Amending the Motor Vehicle Safety Regulations (Importation of Vehicles — Section 12)
http://canadagazette.gc.ca/partI/2007/20071201/html/regle14-e.html
REGULATIONS AMENDING THE MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY REGULATIONS (IMPORTATION OF VEHICLES — SECTION 12)
AMENDMENT
1. Section 12 of the Motor Vehicle Safety Regulations (see footnote 11) is amended by adding the following after subsection (4):
(4.1) For the purposes of subsection 7(2) of the Act, a vehicle that has been sold at the retail level in the United States and that has not been certified by the manufacturer as conforming to subsection 114(4) of Schedule IV to these Regulations may be imported into Canada despite not being certified to conform to subsection 114(4) if
(a) the vehicle was fitted at the time of manufacture with an electronic immobilization system; or
(b) unless the manufacturer has indicated in writing that the vehicle cannot be fitted with an immobilization system, the person importing the vehicle states in their declaration that the vehicle
(i) will be fitted with an immobilization system that conforms to National Standard of Canada CAN/ULC-S338-98, entitled Automobile Theft Deterrent Equipment and Systems: Electronic Immobilization (May 1998), published by the Underwriters’ Laboratories of Canada, before it is presented for registration under the laws of a province, and
(ii) will be taken, within 45 days after its importation, to an inspection station authorized by the registrar of imported vehicles to carry out an inspection function to determine that the vehicle has been made to conform to the standard.
COMING INTO FORCE
2. These Regulations come into force on the day on which they are registered.
November 30th, 2007 at 3:38 pm
To Sarah,
I’m entitled to my opinion Sarah. I should find out where you work also. I would make sure that I could find an American company that can do the same work for cheaper also.
To David, I am not a lemming. I support all things Canadian and I am not a salesperson for GM. I’m glad you folks have earned enough money to purchase your units in America. I’m glad you are taking up arms against what you feel is unfair and calling for boycotts of Gm, Toyota and and any manufacturer that seems to be preventing you from getting your way. It is their product and they can price it how they want. You don’t like it….fair enough. I hope you get the service that you FULLY deserve from your local dealership after the fact. If I worked at a GM dealership ( and I don’t) I’m not sure if I would want to help you out with your unit if something major happened . I have gone to my dealership for over 20 years and bought from that dealership over that 20 years. The people there have made money off of me but I have got service second to none. My vehicle broke down over 150 kms away from the dealership and the roadside assistance plan specified that the vehicle be towed to the nearest dealer. One call to the service manager and it was sent to the selling dealer because I was a valued customer. Long term relationships in any business is key and your short term happiness with your savings accross the border is just that… short term.
November 30th, 2007 at 4:05 pm
Colin, this has nothing to do with someone being able to do someones job better then someone else, this has to do with the same product for more money.
I am just wondering how someone would pay $30,000 more for the exact same product in Canada, when they could get it a few hours away and save that amount.
This is why not just my husband and I, but an estimated 3000 Canadians went south to make our purchases.
You are so right when you say, it’s their company, and they can price it how they want….Thats exactly why I bought it from the GMC USA, not GM Canada. Again, as a consumer thats MY choice.
November 30th, 2007 at 7:05 pm
Unfortunately I think Colin and Clinton are missing something here. They have obviously been brainwashed and have no idea what CANADIAN DEALERS have been doing for the last year….give your heads a shake guys!!! Where do you think the Canadian dealers have been getting their cars?!! From the US!! Yes, by the thousands!!! And then selling them to people like you for huge huge profits!! How can you not see that?! What is wrong with you guys?! We as consumers are getting ripped off and the sooner you get your heads out of the sand the better…Its all about profit, it always has been and always will be!! Reality my friends
November 30th, 2007 at 7:10 pm
Bennet,
Go to a canadian dealer, find out what they pay for the vehicle, what they make on the sale and then make amends for your comments.
November 30th, 2007 at 7:27 pm
Colin,
Are you kidding? You honestly think that a dealer is going to disclose their profit to the average Joe? You are dumber than I thought. I know several dealers, and have seen the vehicles they bring up from dealer auctions in the US, and know exactly what they paid for them. They are selling them for a HUGE profit at Canadian prices. So let’s not pretend that the poor poor Canadian dealers are not benefiting from the price differentials. They are, BIG TIME…so why can’t we as consumers? Again, get your head out of the sand.
December 1st, 2007 at 12:31 am
Colin,
I don’t think anyone is demanding that Canadian Dealers drop their prices. They can charge as much as they want. You are free to spend $50k on what costs me $40k for exactly the same thing. You can have as good a relationship with your Canadian dealer as you want. You can name your children after him/her, that is *your* choice.
However - Canadian car dealers should not expect that I buy from them. Nor should the government branch with a mandate to maintain road safety work start interfering with economics and work with the Canadian Auto sector to affect consumer decisions. The way the RIV list is setup with its frequent updates and non-grandfathering of already purchased vehicles is to help create uncertainty and fear to further deter Canadian consumers.
Canadian Auto sector can charge whatever they want to charge, that is none of my business. When they gang up with the government to restrict where I buy my vehicle in an unjustified manner i.e. not related to road safety, then it is my problem. If they setup complicated rules that you have to follow to the dot to hinder you, fine. Unfair, but fine, at least you can follow those rules. The problem is that there are no rules that you can follow to win. Having laws that change anytime without the need for justification is equivalent to not having laws. That is not government. That is anarchy. Unfortunately we are not the ones with the big sticks.
Also - for those sympathizing with the Canadian Dealers - it is up to them to take up their problem with the manufacturer and apply pressure to be competitive. I should not have to pay for their unwillingness to voice their concerns. Of course it’s possible that they did apply their pressure and hence Big Auto lobbying the government for these changes…
December 2nd, 2007 at 5:42 am
Hey Sarah & Shaun Oko I’m wondering why you went to Michigan to pick up your vehicle, did you have problems in Montana? I live in St. Albert and I’ll be phoning around on Dec. 3 to find a 3/4 ton seirra.
December 2nd, 2007 at 2:14 pm
Dan,
No dealers would sell to Canadains because GM told all of they the would loose their Franchise if they get caught, so we had to go through a friend to get it and he just happens to be in Michigan.
December 2nd, 2007 at 3:53 pm
Thanks for all the us pricing pressure. A local GMC dealer came within $2,000 of my USA quote and delivered my 2008 sierra SLT 2500 HD Duramax. Again lets not letup and make sure TC allows 3rd party immobilizers. Great comments
December 3rd, 2007 at 12:58 am
I wish to express my appreciation to everyone who has taken the time to contact their member of parliament, the prime minister’s office, Transport Canada, RIV and other departments to register complaints and seek assistance regarding the electronic immobilizor problem associated with importing vehicles into Canada. I wish to also thank everyone for writing letters of complaint to the US automotive manufacturing companies that have been attempting to interfer with the legal process of importing a vehicle into Canada. I was not aware of these problems until Nov 30/07 at which time a salesman with a US Toyota dealership advised me that I would not be able to get my new 2008 Toyota Tacoma into Canada. I immediately wrote letters of complaint, with requests for assistance, to every individual, government department and every company that I felt would care. I was so relieved to locate this site on Dec 1/07 and to read about the proposed amendments outlined in the Canada Gazette. I realize that my attempts to get assistance to resolve these problems were a little late so I have to thank everyone else that wrote letters and made telephone calls to resolve this matter. Hopefully, I will get a call to pick up my new truck before Christmas and I will have no problems importing it into Canada. Many thanks again to all of you.
December 3rd, 2007 at 12:16 pm
I have two ponderings (questions)
1. I cannot see what immobilizers have to do with safety - if the government is concerned about safety why don’t they replace our national disgrace - TransCanada Highway?
2. Whatever happened to free trade under NAFTA?
December 4th, 2007 at 2:33 pm
I think it is not a good idea to critisize each other for the frustrations
we are now facing with the Canadian dollar. It is counter productive for
the purposes we share. Barry T has brought up two good questions and I can add
a third. What role is the insurance companies in Canada playing here as the
immobilizers are NOT a safety issue. Should Stockwell Day get involved (not
a question) I have been in the Canadian government for years now and understand
the influence of interested parties. If TC are to impose any restrictions
it behooves they to verify their facts before painting us all with potential
limitations which dip into our pockets of hard earned money. I believe if TC are tto
act in this manner, like any other agency, they should be accountable and
therefore challenged in their decisions. If this means a class action law
suite against the government such as http://www.jrclassactions.com are doing-so be it.
Strange how all this is a result of our strong Can dollar. Who would have
thought that the car manufacturers would ever have their MSLP challenged. THe
reason I am blogging this is that I have just considered buying an 08 Toyota
Hylander Hybrid. US price $39,500 - Can price $56,000. It makes me think twice
about buying a Toyota if this problem is not cleared up. Yes RIV have been
tasked to handle this growing industry of importing vehicles but they are only
abiding by the rules set out by TC. A poorly written spec such as 114 can
do more damage as none at all.
December 4th, 2007 at 3:28 pm
To anyone who is uncertain where to direct your anger over this immobilizer issue, please read the minutes of the first consultation session regarding the proposed amendment which took place this monday Dec 4. Our members prepared minutes under at “http://www.carswithoutborders.com/consults-on-changes-to-regulation-114/”. It summarizes the positions that various stakeholders took during consulations that took place last week regarding the proposed amendment. By and large, most stakeholder groups supported the proposed amendment including consumer groups, aftermarket groups, insurance companies, and most provinces. The only group that was resoundingly opposed to it and in favour of the status quo were the auto manufacturers and their associations.
TC is not immune to criticism over this issue as this situation certainly could’ve been prevented but what is clear is that they’ve recognized that the introduction of CMVSS114 has had unintended consequences and by means of this proposed amendment they have demonstrated their resolve to correct it.
This one amendment will not fix all of the problems with the current process but with your support it will become law and correct perhaps the biggest problem that most of us are currently faced with and allow us to purchase and register these vehicles.
The full text of the proposed amendment is at http://canadagazette.gc.ca/partI/2007/20071201/html/regle14-e.html
Please register your support for this amendment to the following coordinates:
Daniel B. T. Davis
Chief
Regulations and Standards
Road Safety and Motor Vehicle Regulation Directorate
Transport Canada
330 Sparks Street, 8th Floor, Tower C
Ottawa, Ontario
K1A 0N5
Telephone: 613-998-1956
Fax: 613-990-2913
Email: Davisda@tc.gc.ca
Carl Paquin (netdog)
December 4th, 2007 at 3:56 pm
Oops, got the date wrong. The first sessio ntook place on Monday December 3rd, not 4th.
December 4th, 2007 at 7:50 pm
Dear All,
I have an even better scenario for you all, in my garage sits a U.S. 2008 Chevrolet Corvette convertible that was built during the week of July 16, 2007, allowed entry into this “fair” land of ours on August 13, 2007. All U.S. 2008 Corvettes have immobilizer devices as standard equipment, as well as daytime running lights, bilingual sun visor stickers and metric displays. But because G.M. Canada “decided”, two months after my car entered Canada, that all 2008 U.S. Corvettes are inadmissible irregardless of what date they were manufactured, there my car sits. The only inadmissible feature that I can see is the necessary conversion to the 5 MPH bumpers from the 3 MPH bumpers (a $1100 dealer modification - another “bogus” GM roadblock). Oh, I almost forgot, there is one small thing - the fact that the identical car in Canada is $30,000 - $35,000 more expensive!!
If there are any lawyers out there reading this, who want to make a name for themselves please respond to this message.
This is what the Canadian Automotive Partnership Council which was set up to effect harmonization starting in 2002 says about Transport Canada’s position on rear bumpers:
(2) CMVSS 215 - Bumpers
May 4, 2007 Report
- Canada has unique bumper requirements (damageability) and is not
currently planning to harmonize this standard.
- This requirement has precluded products from the Canadian market; these are generally low volume or cost sensitive products.
June 2005 Report
- There is no evidence that (ed. Canadian motor vehicle) bumper standards provide any measure of on-road safety and therefore the standard is simply a damageability requirement that provides no safety benefit.
- In order for manufacturers to build a vehicle for both the Canadian and U.S. markets, it must be tested to both standards. This increases vehicle development cost and in some cases can and does result in limiting the choice of vehicles for Canadian consumers, particularly when projected Canadian sales volumes do not justify the additional engineering and testing resources to certify to the unique Canadian requirements.
- Canadian standards stipulate an impact to the front or rear of the vehicle at 8 km/h (5 mph) and pendulum impacts on the corner of the vehicle at 4.8 km/h (3 mph). The Canadian test allows for minimal exterior damage as long as there is no damage to or degradation of the performance of the overall vehicle safety systems or vehicle performance.
- The U.S. standard, by comparison, requires front and rear impacts at 2.5 mph (4.0 km/h) and pendulum corner impacts at 1.5 mph (2.4 km/h) - only half the speed of Canadian tests. The U.S. test permits no damage or permanent deformation of the vehicle, other than cosmetic scratches on bumper covers and sight shields.
Am I correct in my interpretation that the U.S. test is more stringent in that: “The U.S. test permits no damage or permanent deformation of the vehicle, other than cosmetic scratches on bumper covers and sight shields.”
whereas:
“The Canadian test allows for minimal exterior damage as long as there is no damage to or degradation of the performance of the overall vehicle safety systems or vehicle performance.”
The U.S. standard allows less damage at a lower (2.5MPH) speed whereas the Canadian standard allows more damage at a higher (5MPH)
speed.
So how do you compare the two?
The foam bumper absorber that you will have to buy should not cost $1,100. My buddy put one in for $400.00 but on a C5. The dealer quoted me $800.00 but non-dealer body shop did it for less.
The difference between the U.S. and Canadian absorber is the Canadian one has a “sucker” sticker on it. I can’t remember if it says Transport Canada or the part number.
December 4th, 2007 at 11:38 pm
Here’s an excerpt of a e-mail sent to Dan Davis @ Transport
Canada on December 4th. I suggest all of us consider the proposed wording and the potential loopholes that still exist for manufacturers to exploit.
As an aside, Tom S, where did you buy your 2500HD SLT?
That’s what I’m looking for, and if the price closely mirrors
the US price, would like to contact the dealer.
Thanks for the great website, and lets continue to keep the
pressure on!
I have read the proposed amendments and have concerns with
regards to Subsection 4.1 (b) “unless the manufacturer has indicated in writing that the vehicle cannot be fitted with an immobilization system.”
I believe the presence of this language will allow manufacturers to continue to use this issue to frustrate the import of their vehicles to Canada. I do not subscribe to the manufacturer’s logic that the vehicles’ safety could be compromised. The installation of an aftermarket immobilizer by a qualified installer should be sufficient to accomplish the goals of the amendment.
The manufacturer(s) have a vested interest in trying to frustrate any imports of cars from USA to Canada, due to significant pricing differential between the USA and Canada. Additionally, (and I have direct correspondence from GM to this effect) GM Canada is attempting to further frustrate consumers by stating that warranties on GM vehicles purchased in the US and imported into Canada are not valid for 6 months or 12,000km after a vehicle has been put into service.
In some cases, this applies to vehicles that are built in Canada!
Rather than adjust Canadian prices to be in line with their equivalent US counterparts, GM is using unfair (and I believe illegal) tactics to gouge consumers. If they are willing to use these tactics, rest assured they will exploit the presence of the above wording, too.
Given the language outlined above, a Manufacturer could simply declare that the vehicle cannot be outfitted with an immobilization system. There is no burden of proof required by the Manufacturer, nor a reasonableness test on behalf of the Manufacturer.
In this regard, for these reasons I implore Transport Canada to strongly consider omitting the words in Subsection 4.1 (b) “unless the manufacturer has indicated in writing that the vehicle cannot be fitted with an immobilization system.”
The deletion of this wording will not adversely affect the intent of the amendments.
December 5th, 2007 at 8:16 pm
Great letter. You may wish to send this to the following people who have the ability to allow these vehicles to be imported and licensed this week, particularly the Treasury Board.
The Honourable Rona Ambrose, M.P. Ambrose.R@parl.gc.ca
The Honourable John Baird, P.C., President of the Treasury Board Baird.J@parl.gc.ca
The Honourable Maxime Bernier, P.C., Minister of Industry and Minister of Foreign Affairs
Bernier.M@parl.gc.ca
The Honourable Lawrence Cannon, M.P., Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities
Cannon.L@parl.gc.ca
The Honourable David Emerson, P.C., Minister of International Trade Emerson.D@parl.gc.ca
The Honourable James Flaherty, P.C., Minister of Finance Flaherty.J@parl.gc.ca
Mr. Steven Fletcher, M.P.
Fletcher.S@parl.gc.ca
The Right Honourable Stephen Harper, Prime Minister of Canada
Harper.S@parl.gc.ca
The Honourable Robert Nicholson, P.C., Minister of Justice and
Attorney General of Canada
Nicholson.R@parl.gc.ca
The Honourable Bev Oda, MP
Oda.B@parl.gc.ca
The Honourable Jim Prentice, M.P., Minister of Industry Prentice.J@parl.gc.ca
The Honourable Charles Strahl, M.P., Deputy Speaker Strahl.C@parl.gc.ca
The Honourable Vic Toews, P.C., President of the Treasury Board Toews.V@parl.gc.ca
The Honourable Peter Van Loan M.P., President of the Queen’s Privy Council VanLoan.P@parl.gc.ca
The Honourable Gordon O’Connor, M.P., Minister of National Revenue OconnG@parl.gc.ca
The Honourable Christian Paradis, Secretary of State (Agriculture) ParadC@parl.gc.ca
The Honourable Jay Hill, Chief Government Whip
HillJ@parl.gc.ca
The Honourable Senator Marjory LeBreton, Secretary of State (Seniors) lebrem@sen.parl.gc.ca
The Honourable Peter MacKay, Minister of National Defence MackaP@parl.gc.ca
December 15th, 2007 at 6:44 pm
LIBERALS WHO MAY HELP IF YOU WRITE THEM..
Mr. Navdeep Bains, M.P.
Bains.N@parl.gc.ca
Ms. Sue Barnes, M.P.
Barnes.S@parl.gc.ca
The Honourable Scott Brisson, M.P
Brison.S@parl.gc.ca
Ms. Paule Brunelle, M.P.
Brunelle.P@parl.gc.ca
Mr. Paul Dewar, M.P.
Dewar.P@parl.gc.ca
The Honourable Stephane Dion, Leader of the Opposition Dion.S@parl.gc.ca
The Honourable Ujjal Dosanjh, M.P.
Dosanjh.U@parl.gc.ca
The Honourable Ralph Goodale, M.P.
Goodale.R@parl.gc.ca
Mr. Michael Ignatieff, Deputy Leader of the Opposition Ignatieff.M@parl.gc.ca
The Honourable Marlene Jennings, M.P.
Jennings.M@parl.gc.ca
The Honourable Dominic LeBlanc, M.P.
Leblanc.D@parl.gc.ca
Mr. Tom Lukiwski, M.P.
Lukiwski.T@parl.gc.ca
The Right Honourable Paul Martin,
Special Advisor to Priorities & Planning
Martin.P@parl.gc.ca
The Honourable Dan McTeague, M.P.
McTeague.D@parl.gc.ca
The Honourable John McCallum, M.P.
McCallum.J@parl.gc.ca
The Honourable Lucienne Robillard, M.P.
Robillard.L@parl.gc.ca
The Honourable Judy Sgro, M.P.
Sgro.J@parl.gc.ca
The Honourable Belinda Stronach, M.P.
Stronach.B@parl.gc.ca
The Honourable Joseph Volpe, M.P.
Volpe.J@parl.gc.ca
The Honourable Bryon Wilfert, M.P.
Wilfert.B@parl.gc.ca
December 15th, 2007 at 6:49 pm
BLOC QUEBECOIS WHO MAY HELP IF YOU EMAIL THEM….
Mr. Gilles Duceppe, M.P.
Duceppe.G@parl.gc.ca
Ms. Francine Lalonde, M.P.
Lalonde.F@parl.gc.ca
Mr. Pierre Paquette, M.P.
Paquette.P@parl.gc.ca
December 15th, 2007 at 6:52 pm
NDP WHO MAY WISH TO HELP IF YOU EMAIL THEM….THEY DO WANT TO GET ELECTED……
Mr. David Christopherson, M.P.
Christopherson.D@parl.gc.ca
Mr. Joe Comartin, M.P.
Comartin.J@parl.gc.ca
Ms. Jean Crowder, M.P.
Crowder.J@parl.gc.ca
Ms. Libby Davies, M.P.
Davies.L@parl.gc.ca
Mr. Yvon Godin, M.P.
Godin.Y@parl.gc.ca
Mr. Peter Julian, M.P.
Julian.P@parl.gc.ca
The Honourable Jack Layton, …
Layton.J@parl.gc.ca
Mr. Pat Martin, M.P.
Martin.Pd@parl.gc.ca
Mr. Brian Masse, M.P.
Masse.B@parl.gc.ca
December 17th, 2007 at 2:41 pm
My imported vehicle tale. I went to my local dealer (Canyon Creek Toyota), from whom I had bought a new ‘01 Tacoma, to test drive a new ‘08 Tacoma. Two minutes into one of the test drives in an ‘07 demo I looked at the speedometer and realized it was a USA truck with miles showing as the larger numbers on the speedo. I checked in the glovebox for any telltale clues and found the owners manual jacket from a dealership in Colorado. I returned the truck to Canyon Creek Toyota and politely asked the salesman if this truck had been purchased on auction in the USA. His response was “Ummm, sure. We do it all the time now that the exchange rate is in our favour and Toyota is blocking importation. This one came in yesterday and we didn’t swap out the speedometer yet.” Nice. Their asking price was $35,000 Canadian. I went home and checked the Toyota Certified Used Vehicle website which lists Toyota’s from across the USA. Comparable trucks, one actually from the same Colorado dealer, were listed at $28,000US. Buyer beware.
When, I am hoping not if, the ‘08 Tacoma becomes admissable I will be buying one in Montana the next day. For now my money sits waiting and available but not for Toyota Canada.
December 23rd, 2007 at 2:35 am
Hi there…Thanks for the nice read, keep up the interesting posts..what a nice Sunday
December 29th, 2007 at 9:21 pm
Hello, I purchased a 2007 Volvo XC 70 last week in North Carolina. I have left the car in New York state
while I wait for the 72 hour US customs requirement. I was going to bring the car into Canada on Jan 2nd
2008. However the RIV list says effective Jan 1 2008 you have to contact Volvo Canada to se if the car
is admissable. I contacted Volvo Canada & they would not give me any information. I will now import the
car Dec 31/07. I cannot believe we are at the mercy of car manufactures on admissability. If any one
has any information on Volvo regarding admissability, please reply.
Great web site, thanks for all the information.
December 30th, 2007 at 8:17 am
Wow. What a read. This is something that the CDN Auto sector will be forced to face for some time being. They have forced inquiring and savvy consumers to expose their untruths and racketeering.
What this industry needs is a Dr. Jeffrey Wigand. For those who do not recall, he was the whistleblower and the thorn in the side of Big Tabacco exposing the chemical manipulation that took place @ the manufacturing of cigarettes aka nicotine delivery devices. This was the secret to the colossal and mountainous profits that Big Tabacco luxuriated in.
Do you see the parallels?
I am all for the CDN Auto industry to be offered a chance to plead their case to these accusations and make good, but they currently have no answers - not will they in the near or distant future. From this reg 215 bumper challenge (which I likened to being asked to travel w/ 2 passports though 1 is the international requirement), to suddenly asking the very companies @ risk to preside over the decisions on importing these vehicles - something is absolutely afoul here. We need a Ralph Nader!
I work in a sales capacity as well and when parity (or close to) was achieved we fielded the calls and adjusted accordingly to show our resellers @ the very least we are trying to work with them @ best so that they don’t believe that the distributor is the one making out like bandits: we are sharing the wealth.
I for one am looking @ a car that is currently deemed inadmissible as it can’t be modified to meet the reg 215 bumper requirements. I will guarantee that germany is not manufacturing a sep VW GTI or GLI bumper the Canadian mrkt. VW - GET REAL. 2 cars that I am positive VW Canada sell in trace amounts overall.
In all likelihood, another TC call to have VW Canada answer to themselves.
And when I hear stories like Dave’s in Calgary, i just shake my head… Where’s W5 and/or 5th Estate?
December 30th, 2007 at 3:36 pm
Am I correct to assume that the Immobilizer system installed in a 2008 2500 series Duramax truck meets the standards as outilined in Explainations Section 9(2) of the List of Vehicles Admissable from the United States?
Thank you for all of the leg work done so far.
January 1st, 2008 at 10:29 am
After many tries I still can’t get an answer from dealers or manufacturers alike. I have recently purchased a Honda ridgeline in the U.S and saved a TON of money. WHY does Honda charge $1535 frieght in Canada and the American that lives 2000 miles away pays only $635 ? By the way the truck is made less than 50km from my house !
January 1st, 2008 at 3:56 pm
Interesting stuff, thanks for creating this site
January 1st, 2008 at 7:34 pm
Here is a thought that I have not yet seen discussed on any blog and it deals with the possible violation by BMW Canada of the Transfer Pricing Rules in section 247 of the Income Tax Act (Canada).
BMW Canada buys its cars from its foreign corporate parent (Bayerische Motoren Werke AG, which I will call “BMW Germany” for short). (A similar buying structure would apply to other Canadian subsidiaries of foreign car manufacturers.) Similarly, BMW of North America also buys its cars from its foreign corporate parent (BMW Germany).
The following illustrates the wholesale dealer pricing differential between Canadian and US marketed BMWs. For a 2008 BMW 650 coupe (base car, no options), the wholesale price to the Canadian dealer from BMW Canada appears to be in the range of $92,000 (with a retail price to the public of $101,500. However, in the US wholesale price to a US dealer appears to be about $67,000 (with a retail price to the public of about $75,600). No doubt, these wholesale prices are the direct result of the pricing agreements that each of BMW Canada and BMW of NA have their corporate parent (BMW Germany).
Section 247 of the Income Tax Act (Canada) relates specifically to transactions or arrangements between a taxpayer (such as BMW Canada) and a non-resident person with whom the taxpayer does not deal at arm’s length (BMW Germany). The transfer prices adopted by a group of non-arm’s length parties (such as between BMW Germany and BMW Canada) directly affect the profits to be reported by each of those parties in their respective countries. Canada’s transfer pricing legislation embodies the arm’s length principle and requires that, for tax purposes, the terms and conditions agreed to between non-arm’s length parties (BMW Canada and BMW Germany) in their commercial or financial relations be those that one would have expected had the parties been dealing with each other at arm’s length.
In effect, if BMW Canada were buying a new BMW 650 from BMW Germany for the same price as BMW of NA pays (which is probably about $25,000 less than it now pays), then on the sale of the vehicle for $101,500, the profit recorded by BMW Canada would be $25,000 higher. Instead, that $25,000 of extra income is reported and taxed in Germany in the hands of BMW Germany and is not taxed in Canada. Hence, the Canada Revenue Agency (formerly Revenue Canada) is receiving tax on about $25,000 less income on the sale of the BMW 650 in Canada (which at a 35% tax rate is about $9,000 less tax than it may be entitled to receive) than if BMW Canada were paying the same or similar price to BMW Germany as BMW of NA pays to BMW Germany.
The transfer pricing rules allow the Canada Revenue Agency to treat BMW Canada’s cost of the vehicle as the lower amount (even thought it pays the higher amount), thereby increasing the income taxed in Canada by $25,000.
In other words, I believe that the Canada Revenue Agency should begin an audit of the income tax reporting of BMW Canada (as well as the other Canadian marketing subsidiaries of foreign vehicle manufacturers) to ensure that if these cross border pricing discrepancies continue, Canada gets its fair share of income tax tax from each sale.
The transfer pricing rules in Canada are designed to ensure that Canadian taxpayers (such as BMW Canada), who are non-arm’s length members of a group and engage in transactions with a non-resident member of that group (such as BMW Germany), report substantially the same amount of income as they would if they had been dealing with each other at arm’s length.
Section 247 of the Income Tax Act also contains penalty provisions where the transfer pricing rules are violated. These penalties can be substantial.
At the end of the day, the real cause of the higher Canadian vehicle prices is the pricing regime set by the foreign parent manufactures when selling their cars to their Canadian subsidiaries. I sympathize with the Canadian dealers, who are caught in the middle and are forced to sell their cars at prices higher than their dealer costs, or lose money themselves on each sale. I would much prefer to purchase from a Canadian dealer, but in order for that to happen,Canadian dealers must be able to buy their cars at wholesale prices which are competitive with US dealer costs. The system would then balance out and Canadians would get the benefit of their higher Canadian dollar.
If “jobs” are being lost in Canada because of Canadians buying cars in the US, it is the direct result of the foreign car manufacturers inflating their prices to their Canadian subsidiaries, contrary to the transfer pricing rules discussed above, not ordinary Canadians trying to save money on one the largest purchases that they will make in a year. If the impediments to importing US sourced vehicles were eliminated (by such things as standardizing Canadian vehicle requirements with those in the US), the flood of imported cars from the US would VERY VERY quickly cause the foreign manufacturers to lower their prices to their Canadian subsidiaries to be competitive with these US prices. People would then STOP buying cars in the US and would resume buying in Canada. The result would be lower vehicle prices in Canada and a considerable drop in the Canadian inflation rate.
To me, our Canadian federal government must take the bull by the horns and deal with this in a fair and equitable way immediately. This should include the IMMEDIATE removal of the provisions added on November 26, 2007 which give BMW Canada the right to determine the admissibility of BMWs coming into Canada (along with the “roadblocks” its unreasonable fees and unnecessary vehicle modifications which it is now imposing). BMW Canada is the party which most wants to stop the import of US sourced BMWs into Canada and to give it control of the process of admitting such BMWs into Canada is a direct and flagrant CONFLICT OF INTEREST. “It is the same as putting the fox in charge of protecting the chicken coupe.”
Similar changes should also be made IMMEDIATELY to the same rules which give other Canadian subsidiaries of foreign vehicle manufacturers the right to do the same (e.g. Mercedes Benz).
Thank you for your interest in this subject, as the sooner that it is corrected the better off ALL Canadians will be. All of this is a sad reflection on the vehicle sales process in Canada and how ordinary Canadians are being cheated by the big foreign vehicle manufacturers.
January 3rd, 2008 at 4:31 pm
What a cool blog, I found it by accident but am glad I did
January 14th, 2008 at 7:42 pm
I would like to know if Sarah(Nov.28) successfully imported her
Sierra. Did you need to have the immobilizer re-installed and
was this all? Additionally, I understand that GM will honour the
warranty after 6months and 12000km - is this the case?
Thanks
January 27th, 2008 at 5:49 pm
Nahanni, what a wonderful logical mind.. a joy to read..
January 28th, 2008 at 12:00 am
The Government in consultaion with the auto industry have the resources to keep all of us importers trying to save a few dollars very busy with all the road blocks they have put up to date and I am sure they will get more creative as required. I read about a class action about pricing and am not aware of the legal details/grounds however has any one looked into the legality of the recent actions of the auto industry and our fine government with respect to the terms of the free trade agreement? It seems the US and Canada have been sparring in the courts about illegal subsidies etc. as it relates to free trade, surely the recent disincentives are illegal under the free trade agreement.
On Friday Jan 25th, 2008 the Canadian Government accepted my payment of the GST on a brand new Lexus RX 350 I bought.I would take that as a legally binding action on the part of our good Government to ensure the rest of the process ie.registration can be completed with out interferrence. Comments are welcomed about the legal aspects to the NAFTA agreement.
regards ……Stan
February 2nd, 2008 at 2:37 pm
Thanks for sharing
February 3rd, 2008 at 3:55 pm
This is real good info. Thanks for sharing.
February 4th, 2008 at 8:53 am
Truer word have never been uttered, indeed. Your point is sound and excellent. Thanks for sharing.
February 4th, 2008 at 12:57 pm
It\’s very helpful information. Thanks for it.
February 7th, 2008 at 7:02 am
Thanks for the post. I couldn\’t agree with you more.
February 9th, 2008 at 8:40 am
Hello,
I just found your site and had a good read.I’m glad that we are all coming together in this forum to push for change. I see this whole problem as one created by the manufacturers.They,along with their dealer network have ridden this Canadian gravy train so long that they’re addicted.They’ve long used their corrupt influence on government.I liken them to the mafia (all mafia,not specifically the popular one).They are now in a campaign of lies and deceit on what is and isn’t admissible and for what reasons.
They’ve now got the Canadian government hooked on the idea of the immobilizer.Think of a GM car,they all have Onstar now. Can that technology not be used to immobilize the car?You bet your ass it can,in addition to pinpointing its exact location.Yet we have to now pay for a redundant immobilizer.
So this makes the anti theft immobilizer irrelevant.Yet we get Government Idiots preaching about their benefits to the safety of Canadians.
Not to pick on GM,they just happen to have been my car company of choice for the last 27 years.Now I’m looking for a car company that will treat me more fairly!
The other car manufacturers have been playing the same game of lies and deceit.They all have been lying to the government about what is and isn’t included on their cars.They’ve all been overcharging us for their cars.
A block that costs $30 at Canadian Tire will cost $75 on a US car and $100 on a Canadian car!
From the transport perspective,it would cost you or me $2.25/mile to move a trailer full of cars (8-9 cars) by truck.They get better deals with the volume they move.They also use still cheaper rail transport when possible.
At $2.25, it would cost $5575 to ship a car from Detroit to Vancouver.They ship 8 cars and charge us $1300 for transportation!My math says that’s $10,400.00 they’ve made on shipping!It a fair world it should be about $700.
I have no sympathy for car dealers.They are shysters and will take you for every penny they can.None also for the manufacturers,they have been gouging us for decades.I am really pissed off at the Canadian government for playing this game with the manufacturers and allowing them to continue stealing from Canadians. These people need to be reminded that it is Canadians who elected them,not the generosity of big corporations…
I will be writing to all MP’s ………This has to change……Canadians are being taken advantage of……
We’re not as passive as they like to think,we’re just too busy working to pay our taxes…..thanks to the Internet,we now can communicate our frustrations to the appropriate parties more readily….Many thanks to Al Gore for his invention…..lol
Lets keep up the good fight!
February 9th, 2008 at 9:01 am
Incidentally,why does it cost a manufacturer hundreds of dollars to print and mail a Recall Clearance letter that a dealer can do in less than five minutes for free!!!
Why does the Canadian government require that this letter come from the manufacturer who will charge hundreds of dollars?I’ve heard that BMW charges $1300,GM charges $250.I just requested one from Mercedes Benz and there was no charge at the time of the request.
The manufacturers as well as the government are putting up barriers to make it difficult and expensive for Canadians
to exercise their right to use their dollars as they see fit!
February 22nd, 2008 at 7:01 pm
We need to get this aired on Television….like 60minutes or W-5
Azim Vasrani
March 7th, 2008 at 5:49 pm
Thanks, this is good stuff. You are spot on.
March 7th, 2008 at 6:09 pm
I am writing this in disgust with Mercedes Canada over a 1999 300D I have imported. I car I have always wanted ,They are telling me to forget it.My letter states:
Dear Mr Joyce
Please be advised that the technical differences between a Canadian version Mercedes Benz vehicle and one which was produced for any other of the Damiler AG markets comprise the entire vehicle.
The subsequent conversion of the above referenced US version passenger vehicle to meet applicable Canadian Safety requirements is NOT possible
We recommend not importing into Canada a NON-CONFORMING Mercedes-Benz US verion Model E300 vehicle under any circumstances.
Sincerely
Karen Thomas Lyttle
Do I feel bad for the American Car owners driving a 50,000 dollar unsafe Motor vehicle. Guess I will scrap car or sell in parts.Since I can’t drive it in Canada.What a joke.We must not give into these mega- corps trying to take away our freedom of choice. SHAME ON MERCEDES CANADA..HITLER IS DEAD..WE ARE FREE!!!
March 8th, 2008 at 12:08 pm
I received an almost identical letter from Mercedes. I only asked for a Recall Clearance Letter for a 4matic station wagon !
That told me right off that Mercedes is only concerned about protecting its Canadian Dealers from
Canadians exercising our Democratic right to spend our money where we choose.
I then and there decided that a Mercedes will not be gracing my driveway unless and until they reverse
this policy.I went out and bought a Buick Enclave!
By the way,I bought that in the States,saved over $10k and had very little trouble after paying GM the
GM tax of $250+ .It was brand new and sailed through the inspection,so it cost me just under $400.to import it.
March 8th, 2008 at 12:11 pm
Canadians, it can be done.
Do your homework first!
Keep checking the RIV site
to be sure that your car is
still on the admissible list!
They have no sympathy for you
if you get stuck with the thing,
even if is their fault!
March 14th, 2008 at 5:46 pm
My brother has two dealerships in Quebec and
these people a accustomed to fleecing Canadians.
We have to say ENOUGH. Fair is Fair. I just
bought a Nissan frontier in Plattsburg and all my future purchases will be in the U.S. if ther is no change
April 3rd, 2008 at 7:18 am
Truer word have never been uttered, indeed. Your point is sound and excellent. Thanks for sharing.
April 7th, 2008 at 7:46 pm
I would like to inform everyone that I had to sell my 1999 Mercedes Benz 300D Turbodiesel from the US , for a substantial loss back to the US. I will say that CCRA Customs and Border Protection in Fort Erie Ontario have be absolutely wonderful and helpful with us and Our MB issues. I will never Buy a car in Canada Again. The dealers themselves are “cashin” in on the savings Performance MB in St Catherine’s Ontario have U.S. Model Mercedes used on there lots .We must not give in.They are selling U.S. cars on Canadian lots all over Niagara Falls.
SUPPORT CARS WITHOUT BORDERS