Dale Leier, Managing Director, Canadian Association of Vehicle of Importers:  Honourable senators, I am pleased to be invited to appear before you today to provide comments on behalf of the Canadian Association of Vehicle of Importers, a not‑for‑profit organization representing the interests of the hundreds of businesses and thousands of individuals who import vehicles into Canada for profit and pleasure.  I have shared my comments with the Imported Vehicle Owners Association of Canada, who have approved of what I have to say here today.

For too many years, the Motor Vehicle Safety Act has, despite the best of intentions, failed to accomplish the objectives of ensuring that Canadians have the safest, most cost efficient and effective vehicle transportation among developed countries.  Instead, we have lived with unintended consequences that the proposed amendments in this bill will address in some measure.  We could go much further to ensure that Canadians have the types of vehicles we need the fill the various roles required to meet the needs of our lives and businesses.

According to the OECD’s international road traffic and accident database, Canada ranks behind France, Austria, Germany, Norway, Finland, Great Britain, Sweden and Switzerland for the number of road deaths per billion kilometres travelled.  Also, a recent United Nations Economic Commission for Europe study ranked Canada eleventh and the U.S.A. twelfth in terms of the number of accidents per hundred thousand miles traveled. 

It is interesting that countries with lower accident, injury and death rates than Canada’s also have high-speed autobahns and a greater mix of vehicles combining both left‑ and right‑hand steering.

Clearly, therefore, rather than increasing vehicle safety, the current legislation has merely served to create a barrier to international trade behind which domestic manufacturers have worked for decades.  The auto industry’s current malaise is a product of their making.  Sadly, had the auto companies been more innovative and creative at building the kinds of vehicles businesses and private consumers need, that industry might well have been able to absorb much of the economic downturn brought about by the collapse of the housing sector.  Instead, their failures became yet another drag on the public purse as they lined up for corporate welfare.

By easing the restrictions on imported vehicles, we take another step toward true free trade and allowing market forces to dictate what manufacturers should be building rather than manufacturers dictating to consumers what they should be driving.  If ever there was a doubt about the beneficial effects of imported vehicles on the marketplace, imagine what you might be driving today had Volkswagen not introduced small fuel efficient vehicles in the 1960s, or if Honda had not introduced affordable fuel efficient vehicles, or if Toyota had not set the standard for reliable fuel efficient vehicles.

If you are having trouble imagining that world, you might take note of today’s Globe and Mail, which reports that truck sales are what is driving Ford and Chrysler gains as Hyundai has broken into the top six in Canadian sales for the first time.  To be sure, there are many reasons for this, but opening up trade to imported vehicles should encourage manufacturers to be more responsive to the needs of the marketplace.

Improvements to road safety are readily achievable, but the focus needs to be shifted away from what we drive to where we drive and how we drive.  Roadways that are better marked, better lighted and better maintained with better signage will help drivers and passengers remain safer regardless of the kind of vehicles they operate.  Meanwhile, better driver training will teach drivers to operate more safely in all types of weather and traffic conditions.  By segregating different types of vehicles, wider diversities of transportation can safely share our transportation infrastructure with more efficiency, reduced fuel consumption, lower emissions and greater safety.  Finally, if the various jurisdictions in Canada were really serious about vehicle safety, they would adopt policies found in many of the other G8 countries that require regular vehicle safety inspections.

By allowing importers far wider latitude with regard to the kind of vehicles they bring into Canada, domestic producers would more likely be compelled to respond to market forces.  Everyone is concerned about the environment and our reliance on fossil fuels for transportation.  There is a very close relationship between vehicle size, fuel consumption and emissions.  European nations have recognized this for years and, as a result, have led the world in designing small, attractive, comfortable, safe, fuel efficient, practical and fun vehicles that take up less of the roadway and emit fewer pollutants.

If Canadians are being forced to pay world prices for oil, why are we to be denied world‑class vehicles?

To be sure, Bill S‑5 is a welcome step in the right direction.  In the opinion of the members of the Canadian Association of Vehicle of Importers, however, these amendments do not go far enough toward addressing the needs of Canadian motorists in allowing them to exercise the rights and freedoms that should be accorded them.  Canadians should be free to import any vehicle manufactured in the world that complies with the UNECE World Forum for Harmonization of Vehicle Regulation.  It is time we stopped force feeding taxpayers with undesirable products while sheltering unsuccessful enterprises from the real world.  Let us get with the program and start trusting Canadian consumers who wish to step away from mediocre and lacklustre products.  Let Canadians have the vehicles they choose to drive rather than what those who are well intentioned but overly protective would prefer for them. 

Speaking specifically on the items addressed by Bill S‑5, the bill, if implemented, will address an existing inequity that prevents Canadians from importing vehicles that are perfectly safe and completely legal to be operated in the U.S.A.   One of my members recently attempted to purchase a Roush modified Mustang Cobra.  For those of you who are not aware, Roush is a licensed manufacturer that receives vehicles directly from the Ford factory for specific performance and appearance modifications.  Modifications made by Roush to these vehicles do not void either the manufacturer’s warranty or the U.S. Motor Vehicle Safety Act with which the Canadian Motor Vehicle Safety Act is being harmonized.  While Canadian dealers have been purchasing and importing these Roush vehicles for resale to Canadians, my member was prohibited from doing so himself despite the fact that no modifications were made after the vehicle left the factory.

It is refreshing to see this that legislation would finally accord Canadian citizens the same rights as Canadian businesses in this regard.

If there is a concern about the legislation beyond those mentioned previously, it is simply that it does not go far enough.  Bill S‑5 seeks to limit application to vehicles sold at the retail level.  What does that mean?  Without a definition of what constitutes “retail,” there is the risk that importers could become trapped in another round of red tape when vehicles are purchased privately, at auction, or in volume from one seller or any other number of purchases from other manufacturers.

Indeed, there is not any particularly good reason to limit importation to vehicles sold at the retail level.  If a Canadian importer plans to purchase vehicles at the wholesale level and have them modified to meet the relevant Canadian regulations using Canadian parts, labour and inspectors, it seems to me that the intent of the Motor Vehicle Safety Act standards are preserved and that taxable Canadian profits are preserved along with it.

In conclusion, I applaud the committee for its work.  However, let this not be the end, but a new beginning.  Let this be the first step of unshackling Canadians and freeing them to exercise their full rights and privileges as citizens of this great country.  Let us accord Canadians the same respect and privileges accorded to peoples living in democratic countries around the world who are allowed to own and operate the kinds of vehicles that best suit their individual needs as determined by them.  

Dear Mr. Coons,

As  we are all aware, current legislation does not permit the importation of vehicles less than 15 years old from countries other than the USA.   From an objective point of view, there can only be 3 possible reasons for such restrictions:

1). To protect the safety of Canadian persons.

2).  To protect the security of Canadian jobs.

How ironic it is that we recently witnessed our own Prime Minister over in Europe commemorating the 90th anniversary of the assault on Vimy Ridge - just one of the many battles over several wars where decent Canadian men paid the ultimate sacrifice to fight tyranny.

Yet here we are 90 years later, in many ways far less “free” than we were a century ago, living in a society where law-abiding citizens are still subject to the whims and petty antics of an unrestrained, self-serving bureaucracy. A bureaucracy so firmly convinced that without their protection, we would simply be incapable of making responsible decisions about our own lives, even down to deciding what kind of vehicle to drive.

Make no mistake - we’re not talking here about hordes of maniacs racing through the streets on grossly over-powered for the weight, inherently unstable vehicles without basic safety equipment such as seat belts, windshield wipers, bumpers, etc. No, the Hells Angels have no reason to fear loss of their favorite mounts – motorcycles – because the powers that be are fine with that.

What we honest, law-abiding citizens have done to incur the wrath of the regulators is chose to drive and own a range of fun, unique, enjoyable and well-built vehicles from that bastion of great manufacturing prowess – Japan. And we all know what Detroit would have us driving if it hadn’t been for the Japanese, right? “How many tailfins will that be with your Corvair, sir?”

In 1986, Transport Canada decided that it would not be a crime against humanity if hobbyists and enthusiasts were allowed import specialty vehicles for their automotive driving pleasure. After all, with so many people enamored by the variety of shapes and purposes for which vehicles are made, who would mind? Fast forward 21 years or so later, and again people are re-discovering the cool styling and features of cars from a previous generation. The only thing that has changed is that these cars are much better built, coming from Japan as it were, when compared to the early 70’s stuff from Detroit.

Now, most people would tell you that it’s better to have a well-built car than something of lesser construction. And yet, here we are being told by Transport Canada that we must arrest this trend of nostalgic admiration of bygone years for exactly that reason – the cars are too good! That’s right – as unbelievable as it may seem, our protectors have determined that there really can be too much of a good thing – that too many old cars are a threat to public safety. Right.

And if you find that bit of reasoning a bit hard to comprehend, fasten your seatbelt because the twists and turns of the Government’s argument get even more bizarre. As a remedy for “too many, too good old cars” they have proposed increasing the age of exemption for importing used vehicles from Japan and Germany from 15 to 25 years. You read that right – in Transport Canada’s pretzel logical way of thinking, its safer to have more 25 year-old vehicles on the road than “too good” 15-year old vehicles. Go figure.

Consequently, this being 2007, if the bureaucrats idea to amend the rule allowing individuals to import 15-year old vehicles were amended to only allowing 25-year old vehicles in, the newest vehicle you could import from Japan or Germany would be 1982. Or in other words, you would no longer be allowed to import a 1986 Mercedes as intended you should be able to 15 years hence when the law was originally written. And this, simply because the cars are too good?

When I think back to how those brave young men gave their lives so that we could be free of tyranny, how could they have know the biggest threat to our freedoms would come not from the Kaiser of Germany, but rather, one of a homegrown variety.

WHO’S AFRAID OF THE BIG, BAD GHOST?

Common wisdom holds that people fear things they don’t know or don’t understand. Take change, for example: When change is thrust upon us and the outcomes are uncertain, we tend to fear the worst.

Now, a lot of people I’ve been talking to have been wondering who, exactly, is so afraid of these cute, economical, reliable pre-loved imported vehicles that they want them banned? Many theories abound, from al Queda trying to undermine our economy to Jimmy wanting to limit competition. Only one thing certain here is that SOMETHING BIG is going on behind the scenes that nobody wants to come clean on.

Personally, I’ve kind of narrowed it down to a few likely of culprits:

1. Those poor, over-worked civil servants who just can’t stand the thought of someone else making a buck while it’s the superannuated bunch who have all the real work to do. (If you think that I’m kidding, just remember - they who can’t get laid off already have jobs for life and pensions that last even longer). This could well acccount for the pettiness of their efforts to barricade enthusiasts and those who bring these delightful, foreign vehicles in for them.

2. A more likely scenario, however, is the official effort to cut off the supply of imported vehicles is part of a much larger plot to integrate North America’s economic and security ties. In short, since the USA has a 25-year rule, we must have a 25-year rule. Yes, Virginia, this whole cluster could be something as simple as plain old hegemony. And I’m not even xenophobic!

There’s just one problem with this latter scenario: Even though Canada produces far more energy per capita than the US, thanks to the miracle of higher income and sales taxes, we pay approximately double the price per litre than our American cousins.

How’s that you say? Well, gas costs approx. 35% less per litre after converting from gallons to litresand converting from US Dollars to Canabucks. Add to that the fact that we pay on average 15% higher income taxes, and before you can say George’s Bushed, you’re paying twice as much pre-tax income for the same unit of motion lotion.

That’s right, folks: It’s our oil, but we get to pay more for it in our essential needs such as transportation. Kind of makes you proud, doesn’t it? After all, it’s the Canadian way.

The solution is quite simple: For gawd sakes, WRITE PHONE CALL your MP and tell him/her/it that since you have to pay world prices for energy, you want world choices for your vehicle needs. Please, don’t be afraid of the Big Bad Government Ghost! Let them know who’s actually paying the bills, and who’s really the employee!

Japanoids in the news

Kudo’s to David Jubb of The Japanoid Auto Store in New Westminster, BC. David managed to steal the airwaves with a feature on CTV highlighting these exciting, economical cars from Japan. If you didn’t have the opportunity to see him on the news, check it out on the link below. Apparently, response to the news item has been so impressive, CTV wants to follow the story as it evolves.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bpXqaPr7mnI&mode=related&search=

Few aspects of life are as impactful as our mobility. Transportation, as a need, is right up there at the top of the list of other essentials such as Food, Water, Air, Clothing, Shelter and Communications. Without mobility, getting to work, school or the grocery store makes life considerably more difficult. Mobility can take many forms including walking, biking, buses, trains and planes.

For day-to-day living, however, the automobile has become an indespensible tool. It allows us to maximize our personal productivity, under a wider range of conditions, in a way that no other method of mobility can. Because there are so many ways for each of us to live, an entire range of vehicles have evolved. This allow us to optimize the vehicle experience to best meet each of our individual needs.

In much the same way freely determining people harbour the right to choose the foods, clothing and music they listen to, we prefer the opportunity to select the vehicle type which most closely approximates our needs and budgets. Contrary to what the unelected intelligentsia would have us all believe, there is absolutely nothing wrong with having freedom of choice when it comes to selecting a vechicle. Just as we would all expect to have freedom of choice in what we read, say, think, eat and wear.

Many factors enter into the equation when selecting a vechicle. Obviously cost is a big factor, but so is size, fuel economy, safety, color and design. Sometimes a vehicle is selected based on the ability to perform a specific task, or group of tasks. Other times the detemining criteria may be handling or ride. And, yes, often a vehicle purchase can be a fashion statement.

People the world over love vehicles for many reasons. For one thing the modern automobile, with it’s incredible technology accomplishments delivered at a price the average worker can afford, represents a crowning acheivement of the post-industrial era. This kind of accomplishment is both noteworthy and admirable. Quite possibly, however, the biggest reason people love their vechicle so much is the feeling of empowerment they receive.

Being able to go where one wants, when one wants, the way one wants, has become so endemic to the human condition that we’ll never be the same. Oh, sure, public transit is fine if you need to go from A to B and it just so happens that there is a bus or train going there at the same time anyways. But, if you need to go to a different place or a different time than the few who are able to adjust their lives to conform, the sense of loss is just too great a price for most people to pay.

That’s why personal automotive transportation is here to stay. The vast range of individual mission requirements, and the high cost to personal productivity, means that vehicle manufacturers are going to be forced to provide us with greater, rather than fewer transportation choices.

Therfore, CAVI has been formed to work on behalf of importers who are striving to meet the vehicle needs of Canadians that domestic suppliers have overlooked. By ensuring that we, who face world prices for energy, have a world of vechicle choices available to us, our opportunities to individualize their transportation experience and enhance personal productivity are increased.