.

• Home
• Francais
• About CWB & Fair Pricing
• Forum
• PETITION!
• Press/TV/Radio
• Resources
• U.S. Dealers & Brokers

70 Responses to “Get involved”

1. D Challoner says:
   November 20th, 2007 at 11:30 pm

   This is a great website that hopefully will wake up the government
   beaurocrates to realize that a simple rule change can have such a huge
   impact. Case in point is the recent change in RIV admissability rules
   for some vehicles with respect to CMVSS114. As I understand it, the
   rule for CMVSS114 (immobilizers) was recently changed to align with the
   UN and deviates from the previous CMVSS114 and FMVSS114. The manufacturers
   faced with losing the “Canadian” premium are taking advantage of the
   situation to try to limit vehicles coming from the US into Canada. They
   instead are offering palty rebates to try to convince Canadians not
   to shop around.

   As I have found out

2. Paul Cooper says:
   November 21st, 2007 at 2:01 pm

   With regard to 2008 Chev Corvette. I have one in Alberta that has a build date of Aug. 10/07. I was informed that the “Immobilizer” does conform(due to build date) but G.M. has not commented on what bumper mods need to be done. I have imported 100’s of 2005-2007 corvettes and changed the bumpers to 2007 standards. Being that there was no changes to the body or structure of the car betwwen the 07 and 08 I thought I was covered ( as we all know I was wrong ). I do have an appointment with the local M.P. to discuss the fact that G.M. is trying to restrict trade ( against NAFTA). Hopefully with enough support this can be overruled.

3. Zabin Somani says:
   November 21st, 2007 at 2:07 pm

   I have some news reporters in Victoria who are looking to interview people caught in this trap. Please help shed more light on this injustice by contacting me and speaking to the media. You can email me at info@ucanimport.com or telephone me at 250-920-3867 and I will forward your name as a person who will go in front of the camera to tell their story. Let’s not allow this issue get cold. TC and RIV have executed a poor policy here and their flip-flopping and deferral of responsibility is alarming. Hundreds of people are out several thousand dollars in their attempt to comply, wait it out, or simply resigning to buy in Canada. Please talk to the media. Good luck to all.

4. roger haskett says:
   November 21st, 2007 at 5:29 pm

   BTW, big thanks to Robert and Serge for starting this whole process (website, contacting media, creating a forum, exerting pressure…) and getting it up to speed so quickly! And thanks to media team members and others who are working on different aspects of this situation. You have helped us band together to get this situation resolved and made us stronger and given us hope in the process. When you read people’s stories on the website here, it just makes it even more clear how messed up the importation process has gotten (manufacturers seem to control way too much in this process) and how Canadian citizens are getting mauled while doing nothing wrong. Often the people (like me) who listened to RIV or Transport Canada and waited patiently at the start of this fiasco are the ones paying the price.

   I think this is what they would like to be true:

   That it is acceptable for our gov’t to publish a list on Nov. 5th, 2007 that back-dates to Sept. 1, 2007 and deems inadmissible the exact same car that was previously on the list because of a rule (or law or whatever it is) called CMVSS114 that came into effect on Sept. 1.

   But wait, no one mentioned to anyone at all the problems this law/rule/guideline might cause anyone because no one was talking about it (and that includes the gov’t office whose job it is to tell Canadian citizens what laws and rules they need to follow to LEGALLLY import a vehicle and they didn’t bother to tell us?!?)

   and somehow it falls to me, the consumer, the citizen, to have known that when they said the “list was subject to revision” they actually meant that it was able to be “revised in the present to change the past” because when I bought my car either my car was on the list (for some people) or my car had been told it would be on the list (told to some people) or the exact same car as the 2007 model was coming out in 2008 (my case) so I was told it would automatically be included.

   This is fixable. Just fix the problem with compliance; we will fix our anti-theft devices.

   Why has this not been fixed? What is really happening here?

   rogerhaskett@shaw.ca

5. Marc Gentile says:
   November 21st, 2007 at 10:41 pm

   Folks we need to get organized and have the car manufacturers respect the car warranty both in Canada and in the US.
   I’m interrested in taking on Honda (because I just imported an Acura MDX). Honda is using shady tactics as to “strip away” the
   American warranty on your imported vehicle.

   Indeed, individuals that have requested from Honda USA a “Non-Recall” letter were asked their car VIN number. Immediately after you
   have given your VIN number to the Honda/Acura rep, they proceed to explain to you that your vehicle is considered a “Grey Market Vehicle”.
   What this means is that Honda “black list” your vehicle in their computer system. This will allow Honda USA to reject US dealer claims
   on warranty work perfomed on your car !

   You do not need to have a Honda issued non-recall letter. The dealer can write the same thing on his dealer letterhead and also attach
   a print out of the Honda warranty repair history report. This is good enough for the RIV.

   Furthermore we all know that Honda Canada will not honour the warranty on US market Honda’s. This is a Non-tarrif barrier tactic to keep the
   canadian vehicle price higher !!! In my view this is unfair and goes against the free trade concept.

   They only way I think we can have this giant come around is to make him hurt. There is a class action suit out there,being lead by
   the law firm Juroviesky & Ricci [jricci@jruslaw.com]. I do not believe we will see anything soon on that front. I suggest we hit Honda
   were it hurts, in the public domain.

   If we regroup we can lobby Honda to honour their product warranty in Canada, we can also lobby the media as to talk about our issue.

   This is what Honda say’s is its Philosophy (published on their web site)

   Basic Principles Respect for the individual. The Three Joys (buying, selling and creating)

   Company Principle(Mission Statement): Maintaining a global viewpoint, we are dedicated to supplying products of the highest quality
   at a reasonable price for worldwide customer satisfaction.

   Management Policies: Proceed always with ambition and youthfulness. Respect sound theory, develop fresh ideas, and use time effectively.
   Enjoy work and encourage open communication. Strive constantly for a harmonious workflow. Be ever mindful of the
   value of research and effort.

   Dreams inspire us to create innovative products that enhance mobility and benefit society. To meet the particular needs of customers in different regions around the world, we base our sales networks, research & development centers and manufacturing facilities in each region. Furthermore, as a socially responsible corporate citizen, we strive to address important environmental and safety issues.

   I WANT TO MAKE HONDA RESPECT THEIR OWN PHILOSOPHIE ! Honour your product, honour our Warranties

6. MAURO ARELLA says:
   November 22nd, 2007 at 2:01 pm

   WE SHOULD USE THE NO WARRANTY ISSUE TO OUR ADVANTAGE,SEEING THAT HONDA IS
   BLOCKING THIRD PARTY IMMOBILIZER UNITS STATING WARRANTY.WHY SHOULD HONDA
   HAVE A SAY IF I HAVE NO WARRANTY WITH THEM…..

7. Zabin Somani says:
   November 22nd, 2007 at 2:10 pm

   Hi folks, I am going to be interviewed by Chek TV today on this subject and Roger Haskett will be as well. My thanks to all of you for keeping the spotlight on this issue. To err is human, but to take a completely avoidable situation and allow it to escalate to this level, well that requires our government. You can reach me on my website and share your stories or read out at http://www.ucanimport.com.

   BTW, for Honda recall information, try to make use of the Owner Link page on their website: here is the information for you http://ucanimport.blogspot.com/2007/10/obtaining-recall-information-for-honda.html

   Best of luck.

8. roger haskett says:
   November 22nd, 2007 at 4:06 pm

   so my interview today with CHEK TV was cancelled because CTV is also doing a story. I was told by Rob Lowry at CHEK that if these was a new twist in the story he would be happy to go with this story but not if there wasn’t a “new twist.” any ideas about this? I thought the twist that they haven’t done anything yet to resolve this issue might be a good twist but no…

9. roger haskett says:
   November 22nd, 2007 at 4:09 pm

   also, i just wanted it to be clear that I’m not trying to dis Rob Lowry, who has been really good with me on the phone and very interested in this story, but rather that we have to find ways of keeping this story alive (beyond the injustice that has occured and is continuing to occur.

10. Zabin Somani says:
    November 22nd, 2007 at 4:51 pm

    Yes, my interview was cancelled as well. I think the news reporters want a new story and not one done by a competing station. As far as twists, I’m thinking that the more we talk about this, the better our chances are of getting a fair resolution. This is also an opportunity to show Transport Canada that their policy implementation was extremely poor and so were their media/consumer relations. The volleying of responsibility from RIV to TC and back again makes Wimbledon look second rate.

    While we look for twists, others twist in the wind on this issue… Telephone me at 250-920-3867 if you want to discuss any ideas.

11. Curtis says:
    November 22nd, 2007 at 5:54 pm

    Notwithstanding having had since June 2002 to harmonize regulations with the US, Transport Canada / OUR GOVERNMENT has not done this. Until all of the regulations are harmonized the motor vehicle regulations with the US there will be an excuse for the manufacturers to say that their vehicles do not comply with Transport Canada motor vehicle standards and thus notify Transport Canada/RIV that their vehicles are not ADMISSABLE thus enabling GM and all the other auto manufacturers to benefit from the failure of Transport Canada to harmonize the standards.

    I have an Excel file with the proper title, name, suffix and e-mail address for each of those MP’s who I thought could have an impact on getting the bureaucrats to sit down and harmonize these regulations with the US. This can be converted to comma delimited format for use in your e-mail / contact program. I will e-mail a copy of this Excel file to anyone who wants this list.
    My e-mail address is mdbuffy778@yahoo.com

    I know that Robert, Serge and others who have started this site are working hard to make it the best they can and are inundated with work.

    I am no website designer so do not know if the following is possible:
    1. Draft a letter requesting harmonization. Here is my suggestion:

    Dear Member:

    I am writing to you as I am very concerned that the failure of Transport Canada to harmonize motor vehicle safety regulations under NAFTA has resulted in Canadian voters being greatly disadvantaged.

    Canadian purchasers of motor vehicles from Canadian dealers currently and in the recent past have paid substantially more than Americans even after adjustment for foreign exchange.

    In the absence of harmonization, Canadian taxpayers continue to pay for the implementation and administration by Transport Canada of the unharmonized Canadian motor vehicle regulations.

    Not only has Transport Canada failed at harmonization, but they continue to make the regulations so onerous (different than the American standard) (e.g. the specification for immobilizers) which car manufacturers have to meet for cars that they export to Canada. As a result Canadians do not have the freedom to purchase certain new and used 2008 vehicles in the United States at prices lower than those offered in Canada by dealers of the Canadian subsidiary of the manufacturer. In the future this will lead to higher Canadian used car prices for models for 2008 and beyond unless Transport Canada can harmonize their regulations under NAFTA. Until the last day or so, most 2008 Ford vehicles were admissable for importation whereas most GM vehicles were not. Today, the website of the Registrar of Imported Vehicles (RIV) indicated that most 2008 Ford vehicles were inadmissable for importation.

    Furthermore, RIV/Transport Canada in the last few days announced that Canadian taxpayers could bring inadmissable cars across the border into Canada but could not be registered until RIV/Transport Canada made a determination of admissability. So a Canadian taxpayer could be in a situation where a vehicle would have to be returned to the United States. What is going on at Transport Canada? It seems to me that Transport Canada needed something to satisfy the media and they announced this “enlightened” change in policy…they would let cars in….but…if Transport Canada later determined that they were inadmissable…..boy oh boy. Where is their common sense. The automanufacturers either are totally frustrated or very happy that they can charge more for their cars in Canada. Could this be a case for the Competition Bureau.

    Given that approximately five years have passed since the harmonization efforts began in 2002, it appears that the Government of Canada and those responsible for harmonization in Transport Canada do not wish harmonization to occur. There is a conflict of interest within Transport Canada, as part of it would be redundant if harmonization was achieved.

    Why is the Government creating further roadblocks to harmonization by introducing the Canadian specification an immobilizer which is different from the one used in the U.S.?

    What is the Government going to do to ensure that harmonization occurs by the end of 2008 and that no further government action will result in the benefits of harmonization being lost to Canadians?

    If you require information as to the details of this problem, I would be pleased them to provide it to you.

    2. Have a button on this website that would cause the letter to be sent with the name and e-mail address of the sender to all of the MP’s listed in the Excel file which list might be expanded to include a copy to each member of the media.

    Thanks to you all for your contributions to this site. Special thanks to Robert Lamb and Serge Bergeron.

12. Curtis says:
    November 22nd, 2007 at 11:33 pm

    Can this Q&A be used on this website for those who don’t understand that we are paying more that we need to for motor vehicles and the source of the problem?

    1. How does the issue of motor vehicle regulation effect your pocketbook?
    Side by side price comparison of all models – Canadian vs US car prices
    http://www.ataleoftwoprices.com/

    2. Why do Canadians have to pay more for cars?
    Transport Canada has failed since 2002 to harmonize motor vehicle regulations with the US and Mexico as evidenced by these documents:

    Canadian Automotive Partnership Council
    Regulatory Harmonization Working Group May 2007
    Table
    http://capcinfo.ca/english/reports/documents/2007/RegHarmon_e.pdf
    Summary Table of harmonization status (NO HARMONIZATION) for each Canadian motor vehicle regulation of Transport Canada

    Report of the Canadian Automotive Partnership Council June 2005
    http://capcinfo.ca/english/reports/report_jun28_05.html#impact
    Detail on each item to be harmonized with commentary from industry with respect to the unwillingness of Transport Canada to harmonize regulations.

    3. How can you help to reduce motor vehicle prices in Canada?
    a. Contact individuals who may have an influence on Transport Canada and ask that Transport Canada harmonize motor vehicle regulations with the United States:

    Your MP:
    http://www2.parl.gc.ca/Parlinfo/Comp….aspx?Menu=HO

    Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities
    The Honourable Lawrence Cannon, P.C.
    Cannon.L@parl.gc.ca
    Prime Minister
    The Right Honourable Stephen Harper, P.C.
    pm@pm.gc.ca

    Minister of Industry
    The Honourable Jim Prentice, P.C.
    Prentice.J@parl.gc.ca
    President of the Treasury Board
    The Honourable Vic Toews, P.C.
    Toews.V@parl.gc.ca

    Leader of the Opposition
    The Honourable Stephane Dion
    Dion.S@parl.gc.ca
    Liberal critic: Transport
    The Honourable Joseph Volpe
    Volpe.J@parl.gc.ca

    Liberal critic: Industry
    The Honourable Scott BRISON, M.P,
    Brison.S@parl.gc.ca
    Liberal critic: Industry - Consumer Affairs and Consular Services
    The Honourable Dan McTeague, M.P.
    McTeague.D@parl.gc.ca

    Bloc Quebecois critic: Prime Minister
    Mr. Gilles Duceppe, M.P.
    Duceppe.G@parl.gc.ca
    Bloc Quebecois critic: (Int’l Trade) Globalization and International Trade
    Mr. Pierre Paquette, M.P.
    Paquette.P@parl.gc.ca

    NDP critic: Prime Minister
    Mr. Jack Layton, M.P.
    Layton.J@parl.gc.ca
    NDP critic: (Transport) Infrastructure and Communities, (Labour) Labour, (Treasury) Public Accounts, (Industry) Steel Policy
    Mr. David Christopherson, M.P.
    Christopherson.D@parl.gc.ca

    NDP critic: Industry - Auto Policy, Science, Research and Development, Competitiveness & the New Economy, Consumer Affairs - Public Safety - Canada Border Services
    Mr. Brian Masse, M.P.
    Masse.B@parl.gc.ca

    b. Join and help a group of citizens that have been affected by the policies of Transport Canada and who formed a group to more effectively deal with importation of motor vehicles from the U.S. Many of these people bought vehicles which were admissible only to find out that Transport Canada changed the rules before they could get the motor vehicle across the border. They initially were not allowed to bring these motor vehicles into Canada but as a result of the effort of the Canada Border Services Agency, Transport Canada allowed “inadmissible” vehicles to be taken to the residence of the owner of the vehicle but the vehicle cannot be licensed.

    http://www.carswithoutborders.com

    For media reports on this subject refer to the media tab on the http://www.carswithoutborders.com website

    4. What might you say in your e-mail request to an MP(s):

    Dear Member:

    I am writing to you as I am very concerned that the failure of Transport Canada to harmonize motor vehicle safety regulations under NAFTA has resulted in Canadian voters being greatly disadvantaged by having to pay more for motor vehicles in Canada than they would in the United States.

    The unharmonized regulations have resulted in major manufacturers such as GM and Ford not certifying 2008 vehicles sold in the United States for compliance with the motor vehicle standards of Transport Canada. Thus Canadians are unable to import these cars into Canada and do not have the benefit of lower motor vehicle prices in the United States. If harmonization was to occur, the Canadian subsidiaries of the motor vehicle manufacturers would have to lower the prices of cars sold in Canada in order to be competitive with the motor vehicles available from the United States.

    What is the Government going to do to ensure that harmonization occurs by the end of 2008 and that no further government action will result in the benefits of harmonization being lost to Canadians?

    Name, Address, Email address, Telephone Number

13. Mike McElhone says:
    November 24th, 2007 at 2:53 pm

    I can’t provide a case history but am hoping that the mess gets solved as we want to purchase a 2008 Odyssey both for the $12,505 saving but also for the better selection of colour combinations. We want to help. Do you need donations to keep the effort going…let me know.

    Mike

14. keith says:
    November 24th, 2007 at 8:23 pm

    I heard about this website a couple of days ago on CKNW Radio here in Vancouver. As someone who has been toying with the idea of importing for about 6 months this was a bit of a shocker.

    When i looked up the RIV table for trucks (i’m interested in an 2006 Toyota Tacoma) it’s blank under the list of admissible vehicles. Does this mean that this vehicle is OK?

    Also, can a non-Toyota car dealer in the US write a no-recall letter that satisfies RIV? I’m considering buying from carmax.com.

    Thanks.

15. Tom Staite says:
    November 25th, 2007 at 3:10 pm

    We should contact the Minister of Transport Canada and demand documentation for the difference between CMVSS114 and FMVSS114.Also we need to demand that the issue be reopened and reassessed.The Canadian Consumer is being ripped off by bad policy.CMVSS114 has unintentionally created a non tariff trade barrier for the OEMs to exploit.

16. Media Team says:
    November 25th, 2007 at 3:17 pm

    Tom - Your post 15 is an excellent idea. It would be great if you could help with this one and let Robert Lamb or this site know what you find out. Thanks for your help.

17. sergelbergeron says:
    November 25th, 2007 at 5:25 pm

    Ref. your post regarding Donations - currently we are not accepting donations (if you can beleive that!!) we want to do the most we can for everybody - So far it’s tough but we have many volunteers. Let’s give it another week. And see our progress - we need to get more Canadians concerned about this not 2-3,000 who are currently buying but 20 million of us who will buy a car in the next 3-5-10 years - we are all overpaying.

18. andrew timmis says:
    November 27th, 2007 at 4:26 am

    This a certainly appears to be a scandal involving collusion between government officials and executives of multinational corporations. Websters Dictionary describes collusion as; “A secret agreement for fraudulent or illegal purposes.” The numerous agreements that have resulted in the present situation have been evolving over a period of more than thirty years. Such agreements are in violation of strict Competition Board of Canada regulations and are punishable by fines and or, prison sentences. About ten years ago, the Government of the European Community determined that the same manufacturers who sell automobiles in North America, were trying to prevent citizens of certain European Community regions from purchasing vehicles in other European Community regions where the prices were lower. One of the methods utilized by the manufacturers was to prohibit their dealers in regions where prices were lower from selling to customers who were from regions where prices were higher.
    The Government of the European Community raided the offices of these Corporations, seized documents, laid charges and fined these automobile companies millions of Euros each. Apparently the illegal practices stopped after that. In Canada and the United States our governments have, despite strict competition laws in both countries, behaved in a manner that can only be regarded as the result of intense corruption at the highest levels. Automobile companies have acted at every opportunity possible to prevent independent dealers from purchasing vehicles in Canada and selling them to customers in the United States and at the same time, to prevent dealers in the United States from selling vehicles to customers in Canada. Instead of raiding the offices of these companies, seizing their documents, charging them under the competition act for violations of competition laws, the governments of both countries have instead, aided and abetted these practices in every way imaginable. We have in Canada today, a public inquiry about to begin, that involves allegations that a former most senior politician in Ottawa did while in office accept some time ago, a cash payment of several hundred thousand dollars, in exchange for lobbying on behalf of one or more multinational manufacturers. The lobbying was apparently intended to influence government decisions involving the procurement of military equipment. It would appear that officials at Transport Canada and their U.S. counterpart, the Department of Transport, may have succumbed repeatedly and over a period of many years to similar temptations.
    Consider the following facts.
    In 1968, all motor vehicles sold in North America were built to the same standards, regardless of which country they were sold in.The Canada U.S. Auto Pact enabled manufacturers to import and export vehicles between Canada and the U.S. duty free. In order to encourage what eventually became at that time, mostly American investments in assembly plants in Canada, Canadian individuals and independent dealers were prohibited from importing used vehicles into Canada. As a result,prices in Canada were higher and because prices in Canada were higher, individuals and independent dealers could not possibly compete with U.S. prices and could therefor not export used vehicles into the U.S. Gradually, restrictions on importing used vehicles into Canada were relaxed and prices for used vehicles in Canada began to fall. By the mid nineteen eighties, Canadian independent dealers could, for the first time in many years, export and sell competitively to the U.S. At this very same time, vehicle manufacturers began to employ tactics to prevent this competition.
    Exhaust emissions labels placed in the motor compartment of vehicles destined for Canadian dealerships were altered to delete any reference to being in comformity with exhaust emissions standards.
    Exhaust emissions labels were printed with misleading information to suggest that a vehicle conformed to Transport Canada regulations, when in fact, no such regulations existed at the time and a quick check in the trunk of the vehicle would confirm that the vehicle had in fact been built to conform to U.S. E.P.A. regulations.
    All of the above, was intended to make it impossible to export a vehicle from Canada to a U.S. customer.
    Whenever the U.S. dollar was strong, this practice would be revived and when the U.S. dollar was weak it would disappear. A quick check of the exhaust emissions labels on cars and light trucks of the nineteen eighties reveals a constantly changing variety of vehicles that sometimes appeared to conform to U.S. standards, sometimes to Canadian standards and sometimes to no standards at all, depending on where the U.S. dollar was, in relation to the Canadian dollar at the time. These vehicles were in fact, built to conform with U.S. standards and were deliberately labeled with misleading information in order to prevent their export. In spite of the manufacturers actions, in the late nineteen nineties, the U.S.E.P.A issued a list of Canadian vehicles, “deemed to conform”. Very few people are aware of this list.
    Transport Canada permitted the manufacturers to do this.
    In late 1995, Transport Canada announced that effective for vehicles manufactured January 1st 1996 and onward, vehicles sold in Canada must no longer display the universal Canada-U.S. safety information label, used on all vehicles sold in both countries since 1968, that states, “this vehicle conforms to all applicable federal regulations in effect on date of manufacture” and instructed that henceforth, vehicles must instead display a label that either refers to conformity with “Transport Canada” regulations, or simply features a maple leaf and no wording whatsoever, to indicate conformity with any standards.
    This tactic ensured that it became very difficult, expensive and even impossible, without the paid assistance of a “U.S.Registered Importer” for independent dealers to export to the U.S. and for individuals, only possible if the manufacturer would grant “permission”. Manufacturers did many things to block exports.
    They refused to sell to certain individuals who were known to export.
    They kept, as one franchised Ford dealer described, a “dirty list” of people they were not allowed to sell to because such individuals were known to export. They refused to sell mile per hour speedometers to Canadian customers who needed them for export, they threatened to tear up warranties and they told their Canadian franchised dealers that they must turn American customers away. As reported to this writer at the time,
    the president of the largest vehicle manufacturer in Canada , at a luncheon at the Coast Harbor view Hotel in Victoria reportedly told her Canadian dealers that the Corporation was doing very nicely selling into the U.S. on it’s own and that the Corporations dealerships were not to compete with the Corporation in the Corporations territory. Any visitor from the U.S. must be refused. Many Canadian dealers were fined and penalized all through the nineteen nineties, even if a vehicle that they had sold to a Canadian was resold to an American by that Canadian. Some Canadians, upon purchasing a new vehicle were even forced to sign a promise not to resell their new vehicle for a certain period of time. Since the rise of the Canadian dollar, vehicles have once again, after many years, become less expensive in the U.S. and as a result, the same tactics are now being used in reverse, to prevent Canadians from taking advantage of lower prices and force them to pay, in many cases twenty to thirty thousand dollars more for a vehicle in Canada than in the U.S. Transport Canada has ensured that it play the strongest part possible in restricting free trade by individuals and independent dealers. The Canada U.S. Free Trade agreement expressed serious concern for what it referred to as “standards related barriers to trade”. It states that such barriers can be a serious impediment to trade by the participants, causing severe economic hardship to exporters and importers alike. It stipulates that both the governments of Canada and of the U.S.A. must completely eliminate standards related barriers to trade. Neither government has done so. At the time of the formation and signing of this agreement, vehicles on both sides of the border were built to be identical. Since the signing of this agreement however, Transport Canada has done everything possible to introduce different standards for seat belts, for airbags, for bumpers, for providing safety recall information and recently for immobilizers, that have made it virtually impossible for Canadians to import many vehicles. The effect, of course is to force Canadians to give up the attempt and to pay whatever they are forced to pay in a market where competition has been restricted and market access has been denied to them. It might be argued that the motives of Transport Canada have some legitimacy if the standards they impose had a genuine effect on safety, or in particular, if it could be shown that the American standards might cause death or injury. The standards Transport Canada uses to frustrate and block importation have nothing to do with occupant safety. Bumper standards, first introduced at the request of American insurance companies, for the 1974 model year, were intended only to reduce the cost of repairing vehicles, and in so doing, save the insurance companies money. These standards were then and they are now, a complete farce. As automobile designs have evolved over the years since 1974, bumpers have in fact been replaced by extremely expensive “impact resistant” front and rear sections that cost more to repair than real bumpers ever did. Transport Canada uses bumper standards to deny market access and in so doing, enables manufacturers to control market prices. While giving Canadians the impression that it does this to protect their safety, Transport Canada actually allows manufacturers to import certain vehicles, exempt of bumper standards. Bumper standards have nothing to do with occupant safety and everything to do with restricting market access. The same is true for other so called “safety” standards. The immobilizer is not a safety devise. The manner in which Transport Canada acts, has all the markings of a scam. The establishment of a fee collecting, private company, known as “The Registrar Of Imported Vehicles” and set up by Transport Canada to make a profit charging Canadians $200.00 per vehicle simply to tell them whether or not they can bring a used car home from Nafta region number one, to Nafta region number two, where standards related barriers to trade were to be eliminated, is something that should be seriously questioned. The manner in which consumers have been forced to request from manufacturers, such information to be contained in a letter, as to whether or not a vehicle has a safety related defect and for Transport Canada to refuse importation, when such information is not forthcoming from those very same manufacturers who are deliberately witholding this information in order to control the market and control prices by doing so, is an insult by transport Canada to all Canadians. Two manufacturers are at this time charging $500.00 per letter to provide such information and at least one manufacturer is simply refusing to provide the information at all.
    It is time that the Government of Canada hold a public inquiry, in order to determine where and at what moment during the past thirty years the dishonesty started, at what level the corruption includes present or past public officials and to what degree the relationships between industry and government representatives have been influenced by the the very thing that drives the current state of affairs, which is money.
    The Competition Board of Canada and the members of Parliament must act now.
    Surely Canadians must not have to become citizens of the European Union, in order to be treated fairly.

19. Arnold Peters says:
    November 27th, 2007 at 9:54 am

    There are two ways to fight back I believe:

    Do not vote for the 2 main parties in Canada. They are corporate whores, and make stupid decisions regarding anything Canadian vs USA. They have penis envy. That is why we need different car standards than Americans.

    As for the dealers/manufacturers, the only way to deal with them is not to purchase new or used cars in Canada.

20. John Makuk says:
    November 28th, 2007 at 3:01 pm

    I am one of the thousands of Canadians that legally imported 2 vehicles, both 08 Toyota Sienna LE’s, that met all the eligibility requirements for importation. Being cautious, I received a response in writing from RIV which stated that my vehicle “appeared to meet import requirements”. I purchased the vehicles and before I could get them into the country the rules changed. I then received a “letter of amnesty” from RIV which stated I would be granted a onetime exception to import these vehicles. After importing them, RIV has now stated their position has changed, that the amnesty has been revoked and will not issue a Form 2 to allow registration. I expect, no demand, better treatment from our government. Furthermore, supervisors at RIV are now refusing my calls in which I want to enter new information to support my case. My contention is that my vehicles comply fully with the requirements, including the contentious vehicle immobilizer. Toyota USA issued a letter which states that this vehicle “may not” meet the Canadian standard. It (wisely) does not state that it “does not” meet the standard. Why? Because my research has shown that the 08 Canadian Sienna’s are identical to the US model in terms of immobilizers. The immobilizer ECU part number (provided by Toyota Canada) is 89780-08031 regardless of whether it is a US or Canadian vehicle. In other words, if the Canadian Sienna meets government specs, why is there a holdup on the identical US immobilizer? Unfortunately, I think we all know the answer to that one.

21. roger haskett says:
    November 29th, 2007 at 12:46 am

    Wow, there are getting to be some interesting comments and stories on this site!

    I have a new, much safer car (a Prius) that I bought (before the changes to the RIV list etc…) so my wife and 3 year old son would be safer driving around Vancouver and that car is sitting in Blaine while my wife and son drive around in a 1990 Corolla; which is a great car, BTW, but not so safe anymore.

    It’s really starting to dig at me. How long do they drive in a car that I thought was unsafe enough that I bought a new car to make them safer only to be stopped by my gov’t in some obviously trumped up “safety” issue. Should I sell it now because the gov’t seems to be crazy about not correcting this obvious mistake? Do I wait a little longer believing that justice and obvious commonsense will win? I mean, we live in Canada; I trusted the gov’t more than this.

    WTF is our gov’t doing? Really! Their response seems so wrong that it is impossible believe that there aren’t other factors at work (as Andrew Timmis argues so convincingly above). It does seem that our gov’t is acting in the interests of corporations and it certainly looks like it has done so for a long time. Why are they not cleaning up this mess? And why is it such a mess in the first place? Why do manufacturers seem to have so much power and self-oversight? (that’s probably not even a word - maybe because it is so wrong (self-oversight is one of the step along the path of “absolute power corrupts absolutely”.)

    I honestly thought this was more of an American problem (that corporations obviously control the gov’t), not really a Canadian problem (there’s my Canadian pride kicking in). Sadly, it seems I was naive (and probably stupid:)). (oh, for those days of innocence)

    Anyway, I certainly take heart (and ideas) from this site. and maybe we can fight back and win.

22. andrew timmis says:
    November 29th, 2007 at 3:12 am

    I have been an automobile manufacturer, importer, exporter and retail dealer of motor vehicles, based in Victoria b.c. since 1968. Since that time, I have been witness on a daily basis to the dishonest practices that have led to the current situation. The Minister of Transport has a duty to protect the personal safety of Canadians. He also has an absolute obligation to do so, in a manner that respects the trade agreements that we the people of Canada have entered into and rely on, for our livelihoods. It is his supreme duty to ensure that Canadian jobs and small independent Canadian owned businesses are not adversely harmed by his actions and that he be scrupulous in his respect for the financial well being of every Canadian, affected by his decisions. The current Minister of Transport is one of a long line of Ministers of Transport dating back to the early 1970’s and even before, who have not merely failed to put the interests of Canadian citizens foremost,…these Ministers of Transport have, instead, repeatedly and consistently put the financial interests of foreign owned vehicle manufacturers first and foremost. The important question is,…..why? There is an enormous amount of money to be made by keeping the Canadian and American markets separate. By making importing and exporting for consumers and independent dealers, as difficult as possible, manufacturers can literally force consumers to shop in certain areas. By doing so, manufacturers can, at the same time, force consumers to pay much higher prices for their vehicles than they would otherwise pay, if they were permitted to shop in other areas. The price difference currently confronting Canadian consumers, is that Canadians must pay anywhere from a few thousand dollars more, to thirty thousand dollars, or even more, per vehicle, in order to purchase their vehicles at home. The tactics used by the Minister of Transport and foreign owned vehicle manufacturers, in order to protect and uphold these prices are clearly deceitful, dishonest and illegal. Competition Board of Canada regulations clearly state, that an agreement by two or more persons to restrict competition in the market place, to refuse to sell to certain customers and to deliberately engage in dishonest practices in order to control prices, is illegal and punishable by severe fines and jail sentences. The enormous amounts of money involved, is the motivation for this behavior. It is well known throughout the world, that in many industries, Highly paid lobbyists are regularly engaged, in order to influence government officials. If a certain manufacturer can sell ten thousand vehicles in Canada and make twenty thousand dollars extra profit on each one of them, than he would make, if he were to sell them in the U.S.A. and he can persuade the Minister of Transport to pass regulations that will ensure that this is possible, then that manufacturer is going to find it very tempting to influence that Minister, or his deputy Minister, or the bureaucrats beneath them. It is incumbent upon every Canadian, to insist on a public inquiry, in order to reveal, for the first time in more than thirty years, why our Ministers of Transport have, during all of this long time, been supporting the financial interests of foreign owned manufacturers, at the expense of ordinary Canadians. The Canada U.S. Free Trade agreement of 1988 insists that, “standards related barriers to trade”, are to be eliminated. It further states that, The Government of Canada shall work to harmonize standards with our trading partner, the U.S.A. The Ministers Of Transport have, since that time, imposed new standards related barriers to trade and refused to harmonize standards. It is essential that a public inquiry examine the personal relationships between senior Transport Canada officials and senior representatives and lobbyists for vehicle manufacturers. Such an investigation must include, not only the people currently involved, but those who have been involved during the past thirty years as well. There have been many scandals in government, in Canada. Most of them pale in comparison to this one. We must have investigative action now.

23. Simon Newby says:
    November 29th, 2007 at 9:52 am

    John Makuk’s comment about the immobilizer part number is incredible. I think most of us on this site suspect more-or-less the same thing — i.e., that the immobiliser in US and Canadian cars is identical, but that the manufacturers have been given all the power to withhold this information from TC and RIC.

    It seems amazing to me that the government haven’t seen through this blatant abuse of the system, and of Canadians, and stopped it dead in its tracks. TC’s primary concern should be with vehicle safety — immobilisers do nothing to impact on this aspect of a car’s performance.

24. MAURO ARELLA says:
    November 29th, 2007 at 4:46 pm

    What seems to be the big isuue in parliament,is protecting the manufacturing
    sector in Canada.The cross border car shoppers like us are a big thorn in their
    side.I watched for 3 hours today,the live parliamentary debats,and about every
    five minutes or so the topic was 90,000 job lost in the manufacturing sector
    because of our soaring dollar.The manufacturing sector has a strangle hold on
    our goverment for fear of more job loss.
    Transport Canada will do everything in their power to protect the car
    manufacture and not the safety of Canadian consumers.How will an immobilizer
    stop the fatal deaths in the event of a car theft.Everything that happened
    worked out to plan,all the negative publicity about cross border shoppers
    being stuck with cars without borders,has put the fear of God in everyone.
    I hope the next level of reporting will show the corruption,instead of the
    the same story with different names of the victims.

25. andrew timmis says:
    November 30th, 2007 at 2:19 am

    We must have a public inquiry. This every bit as dishonest as the sponsorship scandal

26. Ted Davies says:
    November 30th, 2007 at 3:09 pm

    I just received an E-Mail from my MP[Conservative].He forwarded information from Mr Cannons office.It says Canada border services has been instructed not to stop vehicles at the border but the forms will be clearly stamped inadmissible.It goes on to say Mr Cannon is doing his utmost to find an equitable solution.
    My Mp says there will be an announcement next week.

27. Curtis says:
    November 30th, 2007 at 7:24 pm

    ORIGINS OF HARMONIZATION

    Since 2002, Transport Canada bureaucrats appear to have scuttled motor vehicle regulation harmonization with the US. NAFTA harmonization of motor vehicle regulations between Canada and the U.S. was an initiative that was started by former Transport Minister Allan Rock in June 2002 by the formation of the Canadian Automotive Partnership Council (”CAPC”). CAPC consists of the stakeholders in the harmonization process including Transport Canada and motor vehicle manufacturers.

    WHAT TRANSPORT CANADA HAS DONE TO PREVENT HARMONIZATION FROM OCCURRING - RESULT - HIGHER CANADIAN CAR PRICES

    Excerpts from:
    Canadian Automotive Partnership Council
    Regulatory Harmonization Working Group

    In the May 4, 2007 Report referred to below, it was stated that “No regulations have been harmonized since the last CAPC meeting.”

    (1) Canadian Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (”CMVSS”) 208 - Frontal impact occupant protection standards

    May 4, 2007 Report
    - Canada has not demonstrated that there is a field problem with the current occupant protection systems. With a non-harmonized regulation, Canada risks foregoing the benefits of U.S. advanced systems or compelling more expensive unique Canadian variants of vehicles, or both.
    - TC has hired a U.S. academic to conduct additional cost benefit analysis and risk analysis.
    - Revised proposals continue to seek unique Canadian requirements, so this issue is coded yellow
    - It has been seven years since FMVSS 208 was finalized and TC still has not completed its analysis.

    June 2005 Report
    - Transport Canada has proposed requirements for Canadian Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (CMVSS) 208 for Frontal Occupant Protection that are not harmonized with the belted requirements contained in the recently amended U.S. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) 208.
    - Transport Canada acknowledges that no Canadian field data is available that would specifically support the intended unique Canadian chest protection requirements. In the absence of unique Canadian data, industry can see no technological reason for a different chest deflection standard in Canada.
    - Transport Canada’s proposal would create a further disharmonized regulation despite the fact that they have failed to demonstrate material public benefit that would otherwise be observed from harmonizing with the equivalent U.S. 208. Transport Canada’s own benefit analysis, which the industry feels is overstated, indicates only a ½ of 1% reduction in fatalities and injuries. Considering that approx 40% of all vehicle related fatalities and injuries are still related to impaired driving and approximately 35% are related to unbelted occupants, the government may want to consider focusing their efforts on areas of occupant safety that present greater opportunities for reduction, such as these driver behaviors.

    (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.

    (3) CMVSS 114 Immobilizer

    May 4, 2007 Report
    - The regulation contains performance requirements for which there is no test method or procedure to demonstrate compliance, contrary to government policy.
    - TC without the knowledge of the Canadian industry proposed a revision to an ECE regulation (which was rejected) and TC added the new requirements to the final regulation in a manner inconsistent with regulatory process requirements.

    June 2005 Report
    - Most new vehicles sold in Canada are currently equipped with immobilizers, which can shut the vehicle down or prevent the vehicle from operating if the ignition is by-passed. These immobilizers meet the level of performance required by Transport Canada, and it is felt that most of those vehicles currently not equipped will either soon be so-equipped or those models will be discontinued. In spite of this situation and extensive discussions towards an MOU (ed. Memorandum of Understanding), Transport Canada has amended the Motor Vehicle Safety Regulations to require immobilizers (ed.to Transport Canada standard) on all new vehicles under 4 356 kg gross vehicle weight, starting with the 2008 model year (effective September 1, 2007).

    (4) Self Certification

    May 4, 2007 Report
    - Transport Canada’s (TC) discussion paper on proposed revisions to the Motor Vehicle Safety Act (MSVA) would have the effect of restricting the automotive manufacturers’ ability to certify vehicles using available tools including advanced, state of the art, computerized techniques (correlated to physical tests) and engineering judgment. TC is attempting to prescribe how manufacturers certify their vehicles under the Canadian Motor Vehicle Safety Act in order to make compliance audits easier. The use of advanced methods to support certification speeds the implementation of advanced technologies and supports robust testing and compliance.
    - TC, to date, has not indicated a change in its position on this issue or timeframe for its resolution.

    (5) Emissions Monitoring and Reporting

    May 4, 2007 Report
    - The federal government is currently developing a GHG reporting system which may not be harmonized with the Ontario system.
    - Environment Canada has proposed additional reporting obligations for process level emissions of Criteria Air Contaminants beyond those required of U.S. facilities.

    June 2005 Report
    - Current Canadian regulations require that new vehicles be certified to meet U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Tier 2 emission standards.These Tier 2 standards are the most stringent emissions standards in the world. Through a phase in process that will be completed by 2009, both cars and light trucks, including Sport Utility Vehicles (SUVs), will be grouped for the first time into a common set of emissions requirements. Meeting these emission standards represents a challenge to reducing fuel consumption, and as a result reducing carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions which are directly related to the amount of fuel consumed. Consumption reducing technologies such as direct injection compression ignition (diesel) and direct injection (gasoline) engines are challenged by tight emissions standards. However, even with the introduction of new technologies and the common process with the U.S., Canada’s ability to meet these requirements is still severely challenged because of differing fuel quality. Under the Tier 2 program, the in-use performance of emission control systems must be maintained for the useful life of the vehicle or 190,000 kilometers.
    Attaining this long life requirement is highly dependant on fuel quality, which in Canada, has been compromised by the addition of manganese-based fuel additives in most consumer purchased fuel. In general, fuel suppliers have temporarily suspended the use of manganese-based additives in gasoline refining pending the outcome of the Government’s independent scientific third party review. Unfortunately this review continues to be delayed by the government and seriously risks the re-introduction of this metal-based fuel additive.
    Key Recommendations:
    - Continued harmonization of fuel economy targets between Canada and the US remain a high priority in order to ensure Canadians benefit from the economies of scale associated with harmonized automotive product and the resulting technology and cost benefits associated.
    - Maintain consistent fuel economy standards between Canada and the US.
    Ensure Canadian CAFC remains a voluntary program with targets that are fully harmonized with US CAFÉ.
    - Ensure implementation of harmonized vehicle emissions standards does not lead to costly duplication of in-use vehicle emissions compliance testing in Canada.

    (6) Additional list of unique Canadian requirements:

    June 2005 Report
    - CMVSS 101 - Requires metric cluster (speedometer/odometer) and permits/requires ISO symbols
    - CMVSS 108 - Requires Daytime Running Lamps
    - CMVSS 201 - Not as stringent as FMVSS 201 - CMVSS 201 was not amended to adopt the FMVSS Final Rule that was effective September 1, 1998
    - CMVSS 205 - References ANSI Z26 1996, but allows testing to ANSI Z26 1990 at the manufacturer’s option.
    - 208CMVSS 210.1 and 210.2 - equivalent to FMVSS 225 - minor differences
    - CMVSS 214 - Does not include dynamic test requirements; however, manufacturers have signed a Memorandum of Understanding which commits us to market vehicles that meet FMVSS 214 and satisfy the OOP Guidelines developed by the Alliance Transport Canada requires Canadians to make certain modifications to certain admissable vehicles imported from the U.S.. For example, Transport Canada requires certain vehicles to have the U.S. foam bumper absorber to be replaced notwithstanding the U.S. bumper absorber meeting the FMVSS as set out below (including a comparison with the Canadian standard).

    The foregoing are excerpts from:
    Canadian Automotive Partnership Council
    Regulatory Harmonization Working Group
    Progress Report - May 4, 2007
    http://capcinfo.ca/english/reports/documents/2007/RegHarmon_e.pdf
    and
    Vehicle Manufacturers in the North American Environment
    Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America
    Canadian Automotive Partnership Council
    June 2005
    http://capcinfo.ca/english/reports/report_jun28_05.html#impact

    Transport Canada requires a Recall Letter for admissable vehicles imported from the U.S. The manufacturers or dealers charge for a Recall Letter ranges from approximately $27.50 for a GM product to $500.00 for a BMW to $5,000.00 for a Ferrari. An expensive one page print out.
    The harmonization of Canadian motor vehicle safety standards with those of the U.S. should contribute to having safer, more fuel efficient and environmentally friendly cars because people having a fixed dollar amount to spend on a vehicle will get a newer vehicle with the same dollars as harmonization would reduced motor vehicle prices in Canada.

    Many Canadians are aware of the excessive premiums over U.S. prices being charged in Canada for motor vehicles. It seems that each nightly TV news program features Minister Cannon or people with importation problems from the U.S. because of lack of harmonization or manufacturers who have been selling their electric vehicles throughout the world not able to sell them in Canada because of Transport Canada..

    Transport Canada has created non-tariff trade barriers that limit the ability of Canadians to buy less costly vehicles in the U.S. Presently Canadians are prevented from importing most 2008 GM and Ford vehicles and some 2008 models of many other auto manufacturers because of Transport Canada motor vehicle regulations. As set out below, Transport Canada appears to be unwilling to harmonize motor vehicle regulations with the U.S. This refusal results in Canadians being unable to buy many 2008 models in the U.S. The requirement for the motor vehicle manufacturers to comply as of September 1, 2007 with an immobilizer standard unique to Canada is the main reason for the large number of 2008 U.S. models being inadmissible to Canada. If total harmonization was realized, Canadians could then purchase the vehicle which they want, whether it be in Canada or the U.S. There would be no changing admissibility list of Transport Canada. The right of Canadians to purchase any 2008 motor vehicle in the U.S. without any modification(s) (as is presently the case with some vehicles) would result in pressure on Canadian dealers and Canadian subsidiaries of the auto manufacturers to lower car prices in Canada. If you wish to see the present List of Admissible Vehicles, please go to http://www.riv.ca which is the site of that part of a logistics firm (Livingston International LIV.UN) contracted by Transport Canada to process imported vehicles.

    Examples of motor vehicle price differences between Canada and the United States from: http://www.ataleoftwoprices.com:

    2008 Toyota Camry - 25% to 35% more in Canada than U.S. depending on trim

    2008 Chevrolet Impala - 16% to 27% more in Canada than U.S. depending on trim

    2008 Ford Mustang - 21% to 33% more in Canada than U.S. depending on trim

    2008 Ford Taurus - 34% to 38% more in Canada than U.S. depending on trim

    2008 Chrysler PT Cruiser - 36% to 41% more in Canada than U.S. depending on trim

    2008 Honda Civic - 15% to 27% more in Canada than U.S. depending on trim.

    2008 Lexus LS - 40% to 42% more in Canada than U.S. depending on trim

    2008 BMW 5 Series - 36% to 43% more in Canada than U.S. depending on trim

    Consider asking your MP for complete harmonization.

28. andrew timmis says:
    December 1st, 2007 at 11:30 am

    We must continue to insist that the Minister of Transport Harmonize standards without further delay. Not only our ability to import, but also our ability to export, is at stake here. Many small independent automotive businesses across Canada depend on the ability to import and export used vehicles to and from the U.S. If we continue to allow Transport Canada to maintain different standards, then The U.S. government can stop our exports. Auto manufacturers have so far succeeded in using so called safety standards as a means of preventing trade by independent competitors, and by ordinary citizens. This must come to an end. We need a public inquiry in order to determine at what level of government, public officials have conspired with manufacturers lobbyists and have become involved in this and whether, or not charges are to be laid. Most Canadians are completely unaware, even now, with the intense publicity of the current situation, of the degree of involvement between their government officials and corporations that have been trying their utmost, for a very long time to eliminate competition by illegal means. Ministers of Transport , in the face of obligations that are written into our TRADE AGREEMENTS, that stipulate that they must harmonize standards and eliminate “Standards Related Barriers To Trade”, have to the contrary, enacted regulations that have instead introduced and entrenched such measures, in order to enable the manufacturers in their illegal endeavors. WHY have Ministers of Transport after Ministers of Transport done this ??? Despite widespread industry knowledge of these events, The Competition Board Of Canada has not acted… WHY NOT??? It is illegal to manipulate markets and prices by conspiring to restrict trade and competition by others and by using misleading information, the misleading labeling of products and manipulation of government officials in order to do so. The government of the E.C., European Community acted and fined these companies millions of dollars for doing the very same things in Europe. What is holding back the government of Canada from taking the same action ????

29. Robert Bissett says:
    December 1st, 2007 at 4:13 pm

    Has any Canadian on this Forum been denied the ability to purchase a motor vehicle from a US dealer? If you have mdbuffy778@yahoo.com or rbissett@mts.net

    If the auto manufacturers persist in dictating to their U.S. dealers that the US dealers cannot sell to Canadians, would the Sherman Anti-trust Act in the United States not enable the dealers and Canadian consumers to stop this practice by the auto manufacturers.

    http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/contact/newcase.htm

    as follows:

    Antitrust Laws and You
    How to File a Complaint
    How to Contact Us
    Confidentiality Policy and Privacy Policy
    Leniency Policies

    ——————————————————————————–

    Antitrust Laws and You

    Many consumers have never heard of antitrust laws, but when these laws are effectively and responsibly enforced, they can save consumers millions and even billions of dollars a year in illegal overcharges. Most states have antitrust laws, and so does the federal government. Essentially, these laws prohibit business practices that unreasonably deprive consumers of the benefits of competition, resulting in higher prices for inferior products and services.

    There are three major federal antitrust laws: the Sherman Antitrust Act, the Clayton Act, and the Federal Trade Commission Act. The following information on these laws comes from the Antitrust Enforcement and the Consumer guide.

    Sherman Antitrust Act
    This Act expresses our national commitment to a free market economy in which competition free from private and governmental restraints leads to the best results for consumers. This Act outlaws all contracts, combinations, and conspiracies that unreasonably restrain interstate and foreign trade. This includes agreements among competitors to fix prices, rig bids, and allocate customers, which usually are punishable as criminal felonies.

    The Sherman Act also makes it a crime to monopolize any part of interstate commerce. An unlawful monopoly exists when only one firm controls the market for a product or service, and it has obtained that market power, not because its product or service is superior to others, but by suppressing competition with anticompetitive conduct.

    The Act, however, is not violated simply when one firm’s vigorous competition and lower prices take sales from its less efficient competitors; in that case, competition is working properly.

30. andrew timmis says:
    December 2nd, 2007 at 1:20 am

    Robert Bissett’s letter above this one, is excellent, so are the letters by Curtis. We really have to take this as far we can. Surely there must be talented lawyers amongst us who can help us to take the action that we must take to get the job done. Do we actually need a lawyer, or can we ourselves persuade the Governments of both Canada and the U.S. to launch the necessary investigations, prosecute where appropriate and punish sufficiently to stop the current practices and most importantly, force both the U.S. and Canadian governments to harmonize standards, as was promised to us in the free trade agreements and give free trade, once and for all, to all the people, not just the multinational corporations. There is a letter displayed on one of the pages of this website telling Canadian Subaru dealers that they cannot even sell a used Subaru on their car lot, if the person who traded it in, bought it in the U.S. I have a letter from General Motors to it’s U.S. dealers, warning them that if they end up with a used General Motors vehicle on their lot that has come from Canada, General Motors would cancel the warranty. Then there is the dirty list, that I mentioned in one of my letters above. A Ford dealer showed me this on a Ford controlled access website. Thankfully I was not on it. If my name had been on it, no Ford dealer would sell me a new Ford car or truck. There is the Ford dealer in Parksville, B.C. who was fined several thousand dollars by Ford, because a customer who bought a new Ford from him, resold it to someone in the U.S. before it was six months old. There is the group of seniors from Portland, Oregon, who visited the Cadillac dealer in Victoria, hoping to buy a new car each, only to be turned away, because they were American. Then there is the Honda dealer in Spokane, who reluctantly refused to sell me a new Honda this past summer, because he had been ordered not to and so on and so on. There’s also the 1987 Cadillac that I have in my garage. It was deliberately labeled to state that it conforms to Transport Canada emissions regulations, so that I can not sell it to a customer of mine in Washington state. A quick check of the equipment code, NA5, on another label in the trunk, reveals that it actually does conform to U.S. standards. Naturally it does, they all do. Then there are the 1996 and 1997 General Motors cars sold in Canada, every single one of them, that all have labels that say absolutely nothing. Either their computers were deliberately calibrated to force us all to breath higher concentrations of emissions than necessary, or the computers were calibrated identically and just the labels were tampered with. I have never been able to get a straight answer from a G.M. representative, on that one. What is a fact, is that the labels and or, the computers were deliberately adjusted for Canadian cars, for one purpose only. The purpose was to ensure that neither a private individual, nor a small independent dealer, could export those vehicles. Only the provincial government of British Columbia put a stop to that one, by enacting legislation that stated, that all vehicles sold in B.C. starting with the 1998 model year, must not only meet U.S.E.P.A. regulations, as they were in fact already doing, but must actually bare a label confirming that they do so. Take a look at the exhaust emissions label on a 1998 Chrysler and note how the deliberately misleading label has actually been covered over with another label that actually tells the truth. These letters are bringing out the truth on illegal activities that have been going on for thirty years and more. There are individuals who are working at Transport Canada today and also for the manufacturers, who were not even born when this all started.

31. Michael Buffy says:
    December 7th, 2007 at 10:15 pm

    # allan says:
    December 6th, 2007 at 11:27 pm

    I read a recent report that said something like 500,000 vehicles are coming off lease in 2008.

    Lets assume that’s correct and lets assume the leasing companies take say a $4000 hit on the residual of each vehicle coming off lease due to the downward pressures on new car prices.

    That’s a $2 BILLION hit. Even if the assumptions are off by a factor of 2 it’s still a $ Billion

    No wonder the industry is working so hard to protect Canadian market pricing, even to the point of stretching the truth about immobilizers
    # Michael Buffy says:
    December 7th, 2007 at 6:21 pm

    That’s a pittance compared to the $5 BILLION PLUS that Canadians have been paying in premiums over U.S. pricing for a long time.

    OK…how’d I get $5 BILLION

    1,700,000 new vehicles sold each year in Canada (per Stats Can)
    $20,000 my guess at a conservative (low) price for the average car
    15% my conservative guesstimate of percentage premium paid by Canadians…but we can visit http://www.talesoftwoprices.com and find 25% to 45% premiums.
    $3,000 premium per vehicle $20,000 x 15%
    $5.1 BILLION Out of our pockets and out of our country for the most part (i.e. dividends to parent company)
    The auto industry has a partner called the Government of Canada that gets sales taxes so you can assume the $20,000 includes or excludes the sales tax but for the sake of this exercise I am assuming that the $20,000 excludes sales tax so the Government of Canada gets $250,000,000 to buy us off with all sort of wonderful announcements just before the next election.

    Have I made an error anywhere here?

32. andrew timmis says:
    December 8th, 2007 at 11:34 pm

    It is the sincere opinion of this writer, that the actions of certain Transport Canada officials, in conspiracy with others, have for more than thirty years, been seriously corrupted. Until Canadians put enough pressure on the Government of Canada to investigate this corruption, punish those responsible and put a stop to it , this corruption will continue. The writer to this column, has been a commercial importer and exporter of vehicles, both to and from the U.S., for more than thirty seven years. The tactics that many of the writers to “Cars Without Borders” have been experiencing, only recently, have in fact been going on for a long, long time. unlike many of the people writing letters, who are outraged at the roadblocks, dishonestly erected, in front of them, in trying to import, just one vehicle, this writer has been dealing with roadblocks erected in order to frustrate, or try to completely prevent the writer from importing and exporting, hundreds of vehicles, in both directions, going back to 1970. This writer repeats, what has already been said over and over. This is corruption. In the E.C. the government of the European Community, raided the offices of some of these companies, seized their documents, charged them and fined them millions of dollars for doing the same things in Europe, that they have been doing in Canada. The government of Canada should be doing the same thing. So far, however, it has taken no such action. If one is to realize that a significant part of the corruption is within the government itself, then it is with no surprise, that the government has been so silent, on this matter. Our trade agreement with the U.S.A. stipulates that both countries are to harmonize standards. When the trade agreements were signed, our vehicle standards were essentially identical. There were no barriers to importing, or exporting used vehicles between the two countries. Gradually the U.S. and Canadian governments began to erect barriers, not in front of the manufacturers, but only in front of the small independents and private individuals. The incentives for manufacturers to influence and very likely bribe Canadian government officials is enormous. The parliamentary committee in Ottawa that is currently dealing with claims alleging that payments were made to certain public officials, in the hundreds of thousands of dollars, is dealing with small change. The issue we are dealing with here is one with hundreds of millions, possibly, even billions of dollars at stake. May we have a public inquiry now, please !!!!!!!
    Facetiously speaking, I have heard a rumor, recently, that the Competition Board of Canada has been disbanded. Is it true ? Does any body know for sure ? Maybe they are just sleeping. Now that I think of it, I wonder if they have simply been paid to go to sleep.

33. andrew timmis says:
    December 9th, 2007 at 7:31 am

    Just another bit of news. An independent auto dealer who specializes in selling luxury imported used cars, in Victoria, B.C. recently placed an ad in the local newspaper offering his services in importing used vehicles. The ad was, I believe, about two columns wide by about three inches tall. It was to run for three days, at a cost of approximately $200.00, per day. On the first day of the ad, I phoned him to congratulate him for being imaginative and resourceful, as it has been very difficult for many of us to sell certain types of vehicles, lately, with so many people going to the U.S. He told me that he was getting calls, from people interested in having him source used cars in the U.S. for them. When I phoned him back again the second day, to ask how the ad was working and whether I could help him to handle some of the requests, he told me that the ad manager at the newspaper had called him, to inform him that a franchised dealer for one of the big manufacturers had called, to complain about the ad and so the ad manager was pulling the ad out of the news paper and would refuse to run it from then on. The ad had run for one day at that point. Apparently, only a few weeks before this happened, a writer at the newspaper was fired after writing a story that encouraged visitors to the city to spread their spending over various sectors of the community, rather than concentrating their spending in certain areas. Apparently this offended a large commercial advertiser in the newspaper so much, that the employee at the newspaper was terminated. Other writers and staff apparently protested so vociferously, that the employee was reinstated. This is what is happening in Victoria. Canadians should not be complacent about what is happening in Ottawa.

34. sergelbergeron says:
    December 9th, 2007 at 8:57 am

    Andrew and every other writer and member of this site - thanks for all the comments and feedback. I just finished reading many comments and Andrew’s comments and wonder where was I for the last 30 years - just buying and paying good old canadian prices - well with everyone helping everyone here - with examples, support, knowledge transfer etc, we will make a difference. I am amazed at how we are getting together and we can equalize the forces - they can stop small business men from advertising in the papers - but they can’t stop us on this web-site. Please keep it up -
    Serge

35. andrew timmis says:
    December 10th, 2007 at 1:32 am

    I am ready to help in any way that I can. I do not have an abundance of time available, as I am running a small business and have to work seven days a week, just to keep everything going, however, I can contribute information, advise and evidence of illegal and unacceptable practices, based on thirty seven years of importing and exporting hundreds of vehicles and dealing with the U.S. Dot and with Transport Canada, for many years. I am willing to keep writing letters, as time permits and even contribute a small amount of money to hire a really top lawyer, to take on Transport Canada, the Competition Board of Canada and even the auto companies, If other people will contribute, as well. If many people put up, even just a few hundred dollars each, we should be able to hire a lawyer who can turn this situation around for us. Simply getting temporary relief on the immobilizers is not nearly enough. We must push hard for an inquiry, in order to determine where the corruption originates and put a stop to it. We must insist that Transport Canada cease and desist from practices that are deliberately intended to protect markets for large corporations. We must insist that Transport Canada harmonize standards with the U.S., immediately and respect the fact, that the trade agreement that we signed with the U.S.A. is intended for all Canadians, including small businesses and private individuals and not just for multinationals. We must insist that Transport Canada, literally throw out their current practices of forcing Small independents and private individuals to go begging to the manufacturers, for information. A safety recall, is based public knowledge that is required by law, to made public. It is completely unacceptable, that Transport Canada should force us, to plead for this information, in the form of a letter that is, in many cases, impossible to obtain, from the very manufacturers , who, are trying every means possible to exclude us from access to the market place. We must insist that the Registrar of Imported Vehicles be disbanded. It is completely unacceptable that a private company should be awarded a contract, to force Canadians to provide information to Transport Canada, information that should, instead, be provided by Transport Canada to every Canadian. We should not be paying $200.00 per car to a private company, in order for that private company to collect this information from us. We have already paid our taxes, to pay the wages, of Transport Canada officials, who should be required by law, to have this information ready and available to us. There is absolutely no need for a registrar of Imported Vehicles. Instead, it is high time, that Transport Canada become the “Registrar of Information”, to provide information to the public and have it readily available, on demand, when we ask for it and at the very moment, that we ask for it and at no charge, period.

36. Shawn P says:
    December 10th, 2007 at 5:31 pm

    Has anyone looked into hiring a lawyer? The manufactures are stating incorrect information to the public and should be held accountable. RIV shouldn’t be allowed to change their website after the fact and then begin to reject cars. I’m sure there could be a class action law suit here waiting for some lawyer to make a new for himself. I’m willing to donate money to get a lawyer involved to help guide us in our pursuit of cheaper cars in Canada.

    I also think that the Ontario government should stop giving our hard earned tax money to the manufactures! Maybe the Ontario government should be using our tax money to foster more high tech or medical field jobs which will help bring in more tax dollars! Or our health care and education system could use a little more money! Or better yet, reduce tax and let us spend our money the way we think it should be spent.

37. andrew timmis says:
    December 13th, 2007 at 12:57 am

    I am going to make some inquiries in the next few days about hiring the very best lawyer possible. If others are willing to contribute, we can make this happen. Please show your support for this.

38. robert bissett says:
    December 14th, 2007 at 2:48 pm

    I am not in the market for a new or newer vehicle now or in the near future. I strongly agree with Andrew’s comments and believe this whole situation stinks of corruption. If we as Canadians allow this to continue we are indeed a nation of stupid people. I hope the admendment to CMVSS 114 passes so all those with cars in limbo can get their cars registered but as Andrew stated an inquiry is needed and Canadians deserve answers!!

39. Simon Newby says:
    December 15th, 2007 at 11:50 am

    I’ve put out feelers with one of the top firms of lawyers in Ottawa and will report back on these pages as I learn more.

    It’s clear that a public inquiry would be the swiftest and cleanest approach, and that plenty of media exposure would also be beneficial. Lawsuits etc. should be our last resort. Reading the comments on carswithoutborders, it’s clear to me that enough of us have been suitably enraged that we’re ready to fight the good fight. Most of my friends will support us too, with $$, even though they are not in the market for new cars — this is important because it indicates that we could get massive support from the public at large.

40. Michael Buffy says:
    December 15th, 2007 at 6:45 pm

    LIBERALS WHO MAY HELP IF YOU WRITE THEM

    LIBERALS
    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

41. Michael Buffy says:
    December 15th, 2007 at 6:48 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

42. Michael Buffy says:
    December 15th, 2007 at 7:03 pm

    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
    NDP WHO MAY WISH TO BE OF HELP…THEY WANT TO GET ELECTED…THE PEOPLES PARTY…
    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

43. andrew timmis says:
    December 15th, 2007 at 10:14 pm

    I AM WILLING TO CONTRIBUTE TO THE COST OF HIRING A TOP LAWYER TO HELP US TO FORCE THE GOVERNMENT TO CONDUCT A PUBLIC INQUIRY. THE GOVERNMENT HAS BEEN DISHONEST WITH US. THE CORPORATIONS HAVE BEEN DISHONEST WITH US. THESE DISHONEST PRACTICES GO BACK MANY, MANY YEARS. THERE IS A TREMENDOUS AMOUNT OF MONEY INVOLVED IN THIS,. THE TEMPTATION TO BRIBE GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS IS ENORMOUS. THE MONETARY REWARDS OF BEING ABLE TO DO SO, ARE IN THE BILLIONS OF DOLLARS. WE DESERVE BETTER THAN THIS. WE MUST HAVE AN INQUIRY. SOME OF THE SAME CORPORATIONS INVOLVED IN THIS SITUATION, WERE FINED MILLIONS OF EUROS BY THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITY, FOR DOING THE SAME THING IN EUROPE. OUR GOVERNMENT HAS SO FAR, BEEN ABSOLUTELY SILENT ON THE MATTER. MAYBE WE NEED THE GOVERNMENT OF ANOTHER COUNTRY TO CONDUCT THE INQUIRY, FOR IT SEEMS UNLIKELY THAT WE CAN RELY ON OUR OWN GOVERNMENT TO INVESTIGATE ITSELF.

44. Costly says:
    December 18th, 2007 at 12:53 pm

    Great post and great blog.

45. aloha says:
    December 21st, 2007 at 12:21 am

    Just sent this off to RIV:

    Dear RIV,

    I understand from BMW’s website that they are charging $500 for a recall clearance letter.

    The relevant text from their website is pasted verbatim below:

    “Once you have the letter of admissibility you must bring your vehicle to a Canadian BMW Retailer and apply for a ‘recall clearance letter’ (Please note: This document will confirm there are no recalls on your imported US BMW and is the only document Registrar of Imported Vehicles (RIV) will accept). The letter will cost $500.00 and take 15-20 business days to process. While your vehicle is there you should have the daytime running lights activated as this is mandatory and can only be done at a Canadian BMW Retailer.” [http://www.bmw.ca/content/pressReleases/can_us_faq_fs.asp?lang=en]

    My understanding from Transport Canada’s Motor Vehicle Safety Act, subsection 10.(1), Notice of Safety Defect, “Obligation to give notice” is 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

    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).

    [http://www.tc.gc.ca/acts-regulations/GENERAL/m/mvsa/act/mvsa.html#VEHICLE%20AND%20EQUIPMENT%20STANDARDS]

    My concern is that BMW is not fulfilling its legal obligation under the Motor Vehicle Safety Act by requiring purchasers of vehicles to pay for this recall notice. In this matter of safety, BMW would appear to be violating the Act by effectively withholding this information due to their charging $500 for this requirement. Also, the waiting period for the recall letter appears to be unreasonable.

    I look forward to your reply,

46. andrew timmis says:
    December 21st, 2007 at 10:42 am

    BMW is violating the act and Transport Canada is violating the act. BMW is legally required to provide this information to Transport Canada. Transport Canada, therefor, already has has this information and is withholding it, from the public. Transport Canada is further misleading the public, by pretending that it does not have this information and is then ordering the public to go to begging to the manufacturers, to try to get it. This is a consipacy by Transport Canada and the manufacturers, to withhold information and mislead the public, in support of the manufacturers attempts to block market access, to Canadians.
    In Canada it is a criminal offense, to conspire with another party, to, restrict market access, in order to affect, and or, eliminate competition and thereby, to control, or fix prices. Transport Canada, has been doing just that. This is a crime, punishable by heavy fines and or, jail terms. We must have a public inquiry, now. We must have prosecution, now, for those found guilty, of this crime. We must have an in-depth investigation, that will result in a new set of rules, with mandatory harmonization of standards, elimination of the RIV, and stiff penalties for any Transport Canada officials, found to be conspiring with car manufacturers, to block information and or, to block trade. This corruption and the resulting criminal activity has been going on since the 1970’s. It must come to an end, now. Prime Minister Harper, may we have a public inquiry now, please. To the Competition Board of Canada , may we please have an investigation and immediate prosecution of those responsible for criminal offenses, now, please.

47. rob bissett says:
    December 22nd, 2007 at 1:53 pm

    Just looked at the latest RIV list (dec 21)and my blood pressure is up again
    Why is the 08 Corvette listed as inadmissable due to bumper standards.
    The part # for the rear absorber is exactly the same for 05 thru 08 models.
    Andrew Timmis and Paul Cooper please contact me. rbissett@mts.net

48. Daniel says:
    December 28th, 2007 at 5:40 pm

    I couldn’t understand some parts of this article Get involved, but I guess I just need to check some more resources regarding this, because it sounds interesting.

49. jeff bryan says:
    December 29th, 2007 at 11:29 pm

    I am so pissed by all this crap that I am willing to put my money where my mouth is. Put me down for $1000 to put towards legal counsel to challenge TC and the RIV to defend their position, just let me know where to send it.

50. andrew timmis says:
    December 30th, 2007 at 1:25 pm

    Excellent Jeff,!!!
    If we can have a few more people pledge, just as you are doing, we get can get some excellent help. I am expecting to begin seeking advise this coming week. We sure need it.

51. Nahanni says:
    December 30th, 2007 at 2:58 pm

    This is a copy of my posting a few minutes ago on A Tale of Two Prices:

    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.

52. andrew timmis says:
    December 30th, 2007 at 6:21 pm

    Nahanni,
    Your letter is excellent. You have raised some very important points. Canadian franchised dealers are actually paying more for their cars than than the public, in the U.S. pays. Consider that many cars that BMW and other companies import, come in duty free, because they are assembled in the U.S. There is absolutely no incentive therefore for these companies to keep the price that they charge to their Canadian subsidiary down, (in order to minimize duties) and as you have pointed out, every incentive to inflate these prices, even though it makes their Canadian dealers uncompetitive, in order that they can make as much of their profit as possible, outside of Canada, where income, is likely taxed at a much lower rate. The only way that they can uphold this grand scheme, is to invent, wherever possible, ways and means of forcing Canadians, to buy from their Canadian franchises. For more than thirty years, they have been able to do this, with the help of the Government of Canada. Years ago, it was with the assistance provided to them, by the ban on importing vehicles, imposed on Canadians, by The Government of Canada. Recently, it has been, with the amazing help these companies have received from Transport Canada and the RIV, whereby Transport Canada and the Riv have erected standards related barriers to trade, on small independent importers and private individuals, but not on the manufacturers. There is far more going on behind the scenes, than most people realize and it is precisely why I keep calling for a public inquiry.

53. Christina Ricci