By on October 18, 2013

bmw-3-series-wagon-450x275

As part of a new free trade agreement due to be signed with the European Union, Canada will remove its 6.1 percent tariff on imported vehicles from the European Union, while the EU will remove its 10 percent duties on autos and and its 4.5 percent duty on parts.

According to The Globe and Mail, Canada will have a quota of 100,000 vehicles that can be imported, provided they are made with 20 percent Canadian parts. Vehicle with 50 percent or higher Canadian parts content will be exempt from the quota and can enter duty free. Currently, Canada only exports 13,000 vehicles to the EU, with the Eurozone exporting substantially more to Canada. If anything, the deal will result in cheaper luxury cars for Canadians, rather than a sudden rise in vehicle exports from Canada to the EU.

EDIT: Mark Stevenson at Autos.ca is also reporting that, according to a European Commission statement

Canada will recognise a list of EU car standards and will examine the recognition of further standards. This will make it much easier to export cars to Canada.

I wouldn’t be holding my breath for all kinds of Euro hot hatches and diesel wagons just yet. BUT if someone like Volkswagen wanted to import the Polo (a car that would do very well in Canada, according to VW Canada sources who have done market studies), the once prohibitively high costs of homologating the car might be reduced, or even eliminated.

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

73 Comments on “Canada To End Duties On Imported Vehicles From The EU, Will Recognize EU Standards...”


  • avatar
    Nostrathomas

    Excellent. Now let’s get rid of the 15 year import rule.

    • 0 avatar
      Onus

      Sure beats the 25 year rule that the us has.

      • 0 avatar
        gtemnykh

        Seriously. If I lived In Canada (or if we only had the 15 year rule here) I would be cruising around in my Mitsubishi Delica SpaceGear Super Exceed as we speak! Turbo Diesel van with 4×4 hardware from a Montero? Yes please! Oh man that would be the perfect do it all vehicle for me, especially camping trips. My old Mazda was pretty good, but lacked low range in the transfer case and had a weak and thirsty engine. The 4runner is an incredibly capable offroader but has much less interior room than a van. Good power but sucks gas as much as the Mazda did.

        • 0 avatar
          dash riprock

          you would be at home here on vancouver Island…..the Delica is (quasi) common here. They are so tall and narrow that they look like they would easily tip. Do you know how they do on rollovers?

          • 0 avatar
            gtemnykh

            I’m used to driving tippy old SUVs, I’m sure I’d get used to it. I’m a pretty sedate driver as it is, particularly when piloting something like that.

            Yes I have spent many an hour looking over Coomb’s Auto in BC, they seem to be the biggest importer and experts on these magnificent beasts. Vehicle of choice for tourist expeditions in the Altai region of Siberia as well.

        • 0 avatar
          raincoaster

          @gtemnykh, my missus and I just imported a 96 L400 with less than 70k km on it. We love it!

    • 0 avatar
      DevilsRotary86

      *sigh
      Don’t you love how these free trade agreements seem to only apply to well-to-do corporations and not individuals?

      I am not Canadian, but let’s say I am for the purpose of this. If the EU safety standards will apply to Canada, why can’t I have a car bought in the EU and shipped to me? With this, Canada tacitly recognizes that cars sold in the EU are safe enough for Canadian roads. Say said import has less than 20% Canadian parts content. What if I am willing and able to pay the tariff? If it’s safe enough for the EU, safe enough for Canada, and I am willing to pay.

      Now if only this can apply to the US.

      • 0 avatar
        Big Al from Oz

        @DevilsRotary86
        If the Euro cars are safe enough then all UNECE cars are safe enough. Remember UNECE regulations are global not just European.

        You should be able to import a supercharge 6.2 Commodore V8 from Australia. The sell them in Europe and parts will be readily available in NA.

        • 0 avatar
          DenverMike

          @BAFO – UNECE cars are “safe enough” for me, but that’s not the issue. No one forced UNECE regs to vary so greatly from US regs. That was their call. And it was deliberate protectionism, aimed squarely at the US auto industry. Oh well, that’s there deal, and they can’t have their cake and eat it too.

          We’ve had Holden cars in the US before. They’re also irrelevant in their own country.

          UNECE regs are “global” to what degree? US regs extend past our borders, so they’re global too.

          • 0 avatar
            Brian P

            UN-ECE regulations are “global” in that every country in the world either recognizes them directly, or has their own set of standards that are very closely aligned to them … except the USA, and Canada, which has to this point largely copied the US regulations. Regardless of how the situation developed in the past, the US is now the odd one out.

            I wouldn’t blame the rest of the world for this situation. The US is the one that chose not to be part of the Geneva convention on road traffic, and that dates back to the 1940′s.

          • 0 avatar
            Pch101

            Recognizing that there are common standards doesn’t not mean that every country has the same standards, nor does it mean that cars made for one member country can be sold freely or easily in every other member country.

            The reality is that there are currently no standards that permit that kind of latitude. Cars made for developing countries generally don’t comply with first world standards, and the Europeans and Japanese both maintain different type approval standards that mandate inspections before a car will be approved for importation.

          • 0 avatar
            Big Al from Oz

            @Pch101
            There are developing countries that produce motor vehicles of equal or better quality than some of the US offererings.

            Thailand, Mexico, Sth Africa, etc, these countries build vehicles that are shipped around the world to OECD economies. The quality is very high for those vehicles.

            You try and judge people by GDP and income. You are a poor excuse for a person with that view you hold.

            Try becoming egalitarian, no one is better or worse than you are.

            I think you are delusional in the fact that others can be competitive against the US. Or you fear that others can do it better than the US, hence your belief that everything that’s Stars and Stripes is the bestest, biggest, baddest, hugest, mostest, etc.

            The US in the past held the largest portion of global GDP, now its reducing and the trade/economic influence is reducing.

            Don’t worry there were British people and French people with the same arrogance you have.

            Even today when I go to France some of my relations still view France from the technical wonders they created in the late 19th Century and the economic miracle they had after WWII to the 70s.

            Like a party all good things come to an end sooner or later.

            Like I’ve had to explain to you on many occasions, UNECE regs facilitate trade! The US based regs are insular and defeat trade.

            It doesn’t matter if you think the US regs are superior or whatever. That fact is everyone is regulating ‘glass marbles’ and the US wants only ‘clay marbles’.

            VHS vs Beta, which was the best and which format was selected as the global standard.

            It’s not a hard concept, but you seem to have trouble grasping reality and so does the UAW, Big 3, energy, etc.

            Live with it, the US took a gamble and made the wrong choice.

  • avatar
    olddavid

    It would seem the Harper government is back-dooring the CAW with this new deal. But, since I no longer live and work in the North, could I be reading this wrong?

    • 0 avatar
      Pch101

      It was the Canadians who pushed for this, and they want more export markets for their agricultural goods. Cars probably had little or nothing to do with it.

      • 0 avatar
        kmoney

        This is true, it’s a small part of a larger trade package. The one part that confuses me is that a big part of the deal is “easier access to the EU’s 500 million consumers for Canadian automobile industry.” Implying they want to push the outgiong side as well.

        If Canadian production is entirely on behalf of US companies, it would mostly be profits being repatriated into the US, but it could possibly be a win for the production workers in Canada.

        • 0 avatar
          Pch101

          “The one part that confuses me is that a big part of the deal is ‘easier access to the EU’s 500 million consumers for Canadian automobile industry.’ Implying they want to push the outgiong side as well.”

          It sounds better to claim that there’s something in this for everyone, than it does for Harper to admit that his home province of Alberta is the primary beneficiary of a deal such as this.

          Canada doesn’t have many cars that are suitable for export to the EU, and it probably never will.

          • 0 avatar
            danio3834

            Chrysler is a beneficiary of this as they export Euro versions of the minivans and 300 from their Canadian assembly plants.

            They could be trying to lure other US manufacturers who already have operations in Canada that are intent on exporting to Europe as well.

            I don’t see it happeneing in any big way as there isn’t much appearent cost advantage, but it’s something.

          • 0 avatar
            Pch101

            “They could be trying to lure other US manufacturers who already have operations in Canada that are intent on exporting to Europe as well.”

            That doesn’t seem like a very hot prospect. The US is likely to have its own FTA with the EU within a few years time. There’s not much reason to set up shop in Canada, when the US is next door and Mexico is available for those who want lower wage rates.

            Europeans will be getting better steak from the prairies. Canadian farmers and ranchers should be happy.

          • 0 avatar
            dash riprock

            Probaly will not see a flood of Canadian built vehicles heading over the Atlantic. But is it Toyota or Honda who is looking at exporting US built cars overseas?

            Magna may be a big beneficiary due to the content rules.

            With Ontario electing more Tories than Alberta, I doubt that they will structure a trade deal that only advantages one province with 10% of the population.

          • 0 avatar
            Pch101

            “But is it Toyota or Honda who is looking at exporting US built cars overseas?”

            Toyota and Honda both build cars in Europe. As is the case with many automakers, many of their mainstream models vary by region. Given the differences between European and North American tastes, there isn’t much reason to export many units, when they can be built locally.

        • 0 avatar
          Manic

          “Canadian automobile industry” should be maybe read as “automotive industry”, companies like Magna could be bigger winners here…

  • avatar
    DenverMike

    So Europe can get the Camaro and Silverado, duty free?

  • avatar
    dash riprock

    Not a “free trade” deal, but rather a trade deal as there are still duties and quota’s aplenty.

    Do not see how it can be viewed as Harper(Prime Minister) attacking the CAW. We are a nation of 34 Million that now has access to a market of 500 million. Would a leader spend 4 or 5 years on a trade agreement just to get at a union? Yes I think you are reading it wrong. If Harper wanted to get at the CAW so badly why spend over 10 Billion on Chrysler and GM to preserve the same CAW jobs?

  • avatar
    dougjp

    Apparently it will take 2 years or more until it comes into effect? So this basically reduces the future market value of any European built car that is purchased in the upcoming period.

    And another confusing thing, some sources talk about reduced tariffs being gradually introduced over 5 or 7 years, while others imply reduced tariffs will happen immediately (meaning in 2 years when/if everybody passes the actual agreement? More details needed I think.

    • 0 avatar
      th009

      It reduces those cars’ value by 6.1%. Maybe. If the manufacturers cut their prices by that much, that is (their US and Japanese competitors will not be doing that).

      And of course it has no impact on those BMWs, Mercedes or VWs built in the US or Mexico. (Audis, Ferraris and Porsches are all coming from the EU. And Fiats as all coming from Mexico.)

    • 0 avatar
      Pch101

      “So this basically reduces the future market value of any European built car that is purchased in the upcoming period.”

      Probably not. It’s more likely that the manufacturer will pocket most of the savings, rather than pass on price decreases.

      The greatest issues for Canada are lack of scale and the need for producers to hedge for the CAD exchange rate. Producers want to maintain their margins, and they have to assume a bad-case scenario for exchange rates when setting prices.

  • avatar
    Nostrathomas

    More cheese and cars for us, and more Alberta beef for them. Win/Win.

  • avatar
    AGR

    When Jaguar was owned by Ford, and Mercedes-Benz was part of DaimlerChrysler they did not pay duty on vehicles entering Canada. The savings were not passed on to customers at that time.

    This deal is 2 years down the road, in the auto business one “Counts tailights and not headlights”.

    Once its done and duties are actually removed, and Canada exports beef and pork, and Canadian dairy farmers get more subsidies for importing EU cheese, and M-B and BMW and Audi keep their prices or very close to protect the residual risk on the lease vehicles that will return. While production inexorably shifts to Mexico (NAFTA).

    A Ferrari, a Lamborghini, might be lower in price.

    • 0 avatar
      th009

      European cars imported by NAFTA-based manufacturers (such as recent Buick Regal, or Ford Transit Connect, for example) are still subject to duties. Duties are based on the country of origin for the goods, not on the location of the company headquarters.

  • avatar
    fdoyon

    The government should concentrate on eliminating “country pricing”. Canadians should not pay more than Americans for cars built in Ontario.

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BWqepIaCAAABF6s.jpg:large

  • avatar
    Lou_BC

    Canadian tariffs were initially ruled illegal by the WTO but CAW, Ontario politicians and USA auto giants lobbied the government to fight the ruling. That gave USA car companies an advantage in Canada.

    The interesting part of this agreement is the “Canadian” content portion.
    20% Canadian parts = 100K cap
    50% Canadian parts = zero cap and duty free.

    i suspect that is to keep the USA companies from circumventing higher anti-USA tariffs by producing in Canada.

    I doubt that prices will drop, it just means that EU vehicles will have a 6.1% greater profit margin.

    Accepting EU standards is the biggest determinant affecting trade. Different emissions and safety standards has been pegged as comparable to a 26% tariff.

    Hopefully this means that the EU Amarok and Ranger will show up in Canada.

    • 0 avatar
      DenverMike

      @Lou – I agree it would be nice if the Ranger and Amarok showed up in Canada and some trickle down to the US. But it depends on Ford and VW’s game plan or market strategy, and how they feel about cannibalizing their own line of cars and or, trucks with low margin, mid-size pickups. Same with Mitsu. Furthermore, none are not built in Europe.

      At least we’ll see which, if any, US and Japanese (based) cars are less competitive in Canada, vs. European imports. Or if anything new (from Europe) shows up.

      But that whole “(regulations) comparable to a 26% tarrif” you keep repeating is complete nonsense and ridiculous… Prove it or quit.

      • 0 avatar
        Big Al from Oz

        @DiM
        I think you’ll find Navara’s (Frontiers) and Amaroks (soon) are already manufactured in the EU.

        It will be awkward for a vehicle to canabalise a product if the product is protected. Remember the US will not allow any vehicle to be sold or allowed into the US if it basically isn’t sold there. Many foreign vehicles are at a handicap and can’t gain entry into the heavily protected US market.

        That’s why the US doesn’t have the best possible selection of vehicles globally. Grey Imports are effectively banished from the US.

        The US vehicle industry will see the light and gradually open up the US vehicle market to more global products.

        But the UAW and Big 3 have to allow a market to be created that reflects more consumer need, not UAW and manufacturer need.

        But first let the Canadians get their vehicle market straightened out. When this occurs hopefully the American consumer will say why can’t we have that, the Canadians have them.

        • 0 avatar
          DenverMike

          Comment from BAF0, RE: “It will be awkward for a vehicle to canabalise a product if the product is protected.”

          “Awkward”? It would be kind of “awkward” if Navaras (Frontiers) were shipped in from Europe, when we already have them for sale in Canada, built in the US and duty free. If by “awkward” you mean retarded…

          The Ranger was here and heavily “protected”. So what? Ford freely elected not to sell it here. So what? The Tacoma and Frontier are still here and heavily “protected”. So what? The Titan and Tundra are here and heavily “protect”. So what? The Accord, Civic, Altima, Sentra, Camry and Corolla are here and heavily “protected”. So what?

          Comment from BAF0, RE: “Remember the US will not allow any vehicle to be sold or allowed into the US if it basically isn’t sold there.”

          What does this dribble even mean?

          Comment from BAF0, RE: “Many foreign vehicles are at a handicap and can’t gain entry into the heavily protected US market.”

          Do you mean like Proton, Mahindra, Lada, Tata and other junk? I don’t see YOU, BAF0, buying one…

          Comment from BAF0, RE: “That’s why the US doesn’t have the best possible selection of vehicles globally. Grey Imports are effectively banished from the US.”

          Finally we agree on something, but look at what’s been grey market imported in the past (to the US). German luxo barges and Japanese sports cars. Legal or not, no one is going to bother to (grey market) ship in ‘everyday’ cars and trucks. And never mind the crappy junk.

          The thing is, we have most of the high end autos from around the world. We probably have more of them here, legally, than any other (foreign) market on the globe. What the heck are we missing, that we would miss?

          Comment from BAF0, RE: “The US vehicle industry will see the light and gradually open up the US vehicle market to more global products.”

          Again, what the heck are we missing?

          Comment from BAF0, RE: “But the UAW and Big 3 have to allow a market to be created that reflects more consumer need, not UAW and manufacturer need. But first let the Canadians get their vehicle market straightened out. When this occurs hopefully the American consumer will say why can’t we have that, the Canadians have them.

          Once again (Million dollar 6X6X6X6X6X6 Mercedes truck not withstanding), WTF are we missing????????????????

          • 0 avatar
            Big Al from Oz

            @DiMruggles;)
            Okay ruggles emulator. I like your method of responding, just like ruggles.

            Since when does the US receive a 420ftlb diesel Navara? What about the ‘incorrect’ indicators, lighting, etc. Remember US regs vs UNECE.

            Ranger? I don’t think you ever had the global Ranger we have had. It was only a NA truck and maybe some Sth American nations.

            If a vehicle isn’t sold in the US it can’t be driven on a any US road. I suppose you living in Canada wouldn’t have known that.

            Crappy junk? We grey import full size pickups, are they crappy? How would my BT50 be crappy it’s as advanced or more advanced than a full size US truck.

            You have most high end autos, but not all. You actually have maybe half.

            So a Mexican built vehicle is better than what vehicle? Or even a US built vehicle is of a lower build quality than a Korean or Japanese or even German vehicle. But the US manufacturers (and importantly UAW) realise quality sells and have improved their act significantly. In another decade they will match the Japanese.

            An example is Chrysler. How many botched launches can one company have. But I suppose you will blame Sergio, because you’re CAW or UAW I forgot, don’t you live in LA?

            That’s why imported vehicles are good sellers in the US. Quality difference.

            Are you still jealous the Germans out built the Raptor with the AMG G Wagen 6×6 pickup? It even has portal drive! 0-60 in under 6 secs! Fantastic off road.

            “Proton, Mahindra, Lada, Tata and other junk”. Why are they junk? Because you ‘think’ so? Opinion. They do well in their respective countries.

            Lada? Actually Lada made a little 4×4 SUV that has a bit of a cult following it’s powered by a little 1600 Fiat engine.

            We don’t have Lada’s. Once we did in the 80s.

            You can add more tirades, but like I tell everyone use google and research first.

            Your opinion, based on opinion from MSNBC, UAW/CAW websites might not be accurate.

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            @BAF0 – If there was actual demand for a ($5,000 option) Frontier diesel, we’d have it. And we wouldn’t have to sail the whole (less safe, UNECE) truck in from Spain, just for the engine. Now that WOULD BE “awkward”…

            No, we never had the global Ranger. So? Has the rest of the world had the F-150 selling right next to it? And had to cut the Ranger’s price so it doesn’t start off more that the F-150′s base price? Just to deal with cheapskates and fleet buyer wanting an ever deeper cut on Ranger profits? Nissan killed off their regular cab Frontiers and Titans, just to avoid that scenario.

            Yes, “Grey Market” vehicles are banned, I get that. And I agree it’s wrong, but what “global” cars and trucks are US and Canadians missing out on? Other than disposable junk, what are we desperately missing that a grey market would allow us to own?

            Full-size trucks aren’t crappy, but we’re not missing them. YOU are. Your Mazda truck isn’t crappy, but it’s a Ford Ranger re-badge. Besides Ford balking at Mazda importing it, who says Mazda wants to cannibalize their highly profitable US fleet of autos and SUVs with a low margin truck. And Mazda doesn’t play the stripper truck, fleet game, so what’s the point?

            What high end cars are we missing? The $150K BMW M3 GTS? The one with plexi-glass windows, missing airbags and total lack of emission equipment? Yes it’s street legal in Europe, btw. What else are we desperately missing???

            What German and Mexican cars are you talking about? If Korean cars are better quality than their US, entry level competitors, who cares? The cars are disposable and get trashed by commuters and college kids. But we’re not missing cheap cars from Korea or Japan. We’re missing some entry level cars from Germany, but it’s their call. They don’t wish to cheapen there brand ‘cache’. And we’re missing cheap cars from China? Do you want one? Of course not. And I don’t see you stepping up to a Proton or Mahindra…

            I don’t know what Chrysler’s deal is. They’re already at the bottom and looking for the basement. The 9 speed is just more Chrysler/Ram/Jeep stuff no one asked for.

            Yes I’m TOTALLY jealous, I can’t own a Million dollar offroad Mercedes truck. You NAILED it this time…

            Yes, ABSOLUTELY we’re dying for Russian cars with Fiat engines!!! SEND THEM OVER RIGHT NOW!!!!!!!!!!!!

            …Been there, Done that, BAF0. It was called the Yugo. And it didn’t ‘go’.

          • 0 avatar
            Big Al from Oz

            @DiM
            Again, you have lost the plot.

            You have marginal knowledge of the US/Canadian market let alone the global markets.

            The BT50 will more than likely take sales from full size half ton pickup before any Mazda CUV sales. It might take Big 3 SUV sales away.

            Look at the photo in the link and tell me anything other than a full size half ton or Big 3 SUV that can tow it?

            They also get over 30mpg on the highway.

            Very competitive don’t you think?

            Oh the Yugo isn’t Russian ;) like I stated, no knowledge outside of LA, Toronto or Windsor? Spain or wherever you are from today.

            The BT50 is nearly 20′ long, so the trailer must be at least 28-30′ long.

            http://www.cutlooserv.com.au/wysiwyg/addons/imagelibrary/siteimages/Copy%20of%20P1000166.JPG

            http://liveimages.editorial.carsales.com.au/caravancamping/general/editorial/ge5159981928026966111.jpg?width=298

            Looks like one of our new Colorado’s with the 2.8 diesel, hopefully you guys will get this.

            http://i1.ytimg.com/vi/-XGqpAkprM8/maxresdefault.jpg

            This is why you have the chicken tax and other barriers.

          • 0 avatar
            thelaine

            Excellent photo Big Al. That is a mighty midsize pickup. I’m pretty sure it is just because you guys are upside down though. The effects of gravity are less, I think. I’ll try to provide a link.

            Don’t wait up for it.

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            @BAF0 – If you pulled that stunt in the US or Canada, you’d have your licence pulled for reckless endangerment. We use “global” SAE guidelines and Australia simply leaves official truck capacity up to the OEM’s sense of humour.

            Sure, a small amount of 1/2 ton sales would be lost to Mazda or other global trucks, but mostly they would cannibalize sedan, cross over and SUV sales in North America, besides the small trucks we still have (dying). There’s just too many car options for global trucks to make any kind of dent in the US/Canada market. It’s too fragmented now. And Mazda would rather sell you a highly profitable “3″, than a low margin truck.

            There’s also a tiny niche market for compact roadsters like the Miata or S2000, but it can’t sustain more than 2 or 3 players. Similarly, there’s only room for 2 or 3 small trucks. We only have 3 full-size trucks, so how many do you need? If we had 10 OEMs scratching for the limited small truck buyers, no body would win.

            And that “30 MPG”? Let’s talk “average MPG”, not what something could possible get going down hill with a back wind. Put your most efficient global truck to hard work and it’s lucky to see single digit MPG.

            But you would have to be crazy to think the Chicken tax has any kind of impact on potential pickup truck imports. And you’d have to pretend the ’80s mini-truck craze/fad/invasion never happened too. It was perfect timing for mini-trucks, aside from the cut-rate pricing that made them irresistible. We weren’t naturally drawn to mini-trucks and we’re even less so now.

            Global OEMs have done the math, but I guess BAF0 knows better than them.

          • 0 avatar
            Big Al from Oz

            @DiM
            YYYYYYYYYYYYYYYup? Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.

            Global SAE? WTF is that? Do you understand what SAE is an acronym for?

            Do you know what metrification is?

            I really think you are a North Korean plant, schooled and trained to misinform on websites;)

            I think you now should be known as Kim ‘DiM’ Sim, the Nth Korean (mis)informant.

            30mpg is a figure, you travel 30 miles and you consume 1 gallon of fuel (diesel in this case).

            We even have a Korean dual cab that’s getting 40mpg on the highway. Can’t tow as well as the others though.

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            @BAF0 – That’s all ya got? I’m a N Korean sent here to counter America hating and annoying trolls from The Land Down Undah???

            Yeah, 30 Hwy MPG would be easy enough in my V8 F-150 SC 4×4, with a down slope. So what? 40 Hwy MPG with gears to make worthless. But do show the exact truck in your little example. Should be good for a laugh…

            I noticed your Ex (partner),RobertR, is distancing himself from your trolling and The Small Pickup Mafia. Does he want to get taken seriously or something??? That’ll never happen.

          • 0 avatar
            28-Cars-Later

            I have to inject some humor here since N Korea was mentioned, I was out last night and someone was trying to remember her friend’s name as part of a story, she was saying “Kim, Kim, Kim Johns-” when i excitedly interrupted with “Kim Jon Il! How’s he doing?”.

          • 0 avatar
            RobertRyan

            “We use “global” SAE guidelines and Australia simply leaves official truck capacity up to the OEM’s sense of humour.”

            No that is the US where the OEM’s agreed to a very subjective “standard” That presumably only one OEM has partially applied to their own products, the rest are using their own rather subjective values.

  • avatar
    Big Al from Oz

    A vehicle the Canaddians would love is the Nissan Navara (Frontier) with the 420ftlb V6 diesel we get from Spain. We get the same in the Pathfinder a V6 diesel.

    Or even the Merceedes G Wagen 6×6! It will be cheaper than in the US! NO Chicken Tax!

  • avatar
    Big Al from Oz

    In reality this is a first important step by the Canadians, a smallish step, but in the correct direction. Changes will occur but it will take many years, so to the Canadians, don’t expect much.

    I wouldn’t call it a true FTA, but no FTA is going to be truly free.

    The acceptance of UNECE regulations is a signal that the US based system of regulations are not conducive for a global market and even freedom of choice to its people.

    The Europeans already sample US vehicles through grey imports. There is not a large market for the larger US vehicles or US manufactured vehicles. The Europeans would already have them or versions of them.

    It’s the Canadians who will benefit. They will hopefully have a greater range of motor vehicles available to them and not be limited to the select vehicles that the US can only have.

    This also should be a signal to the US auto manufacturers that the world is changing and they had better start changing to suit the world. The US can’t go on with its insular motor vehicle industry.

    The UAW and Big Three, US energy influences are slowly eroding.

    I told you so.

    • 0 avatar
      Scoutdude

      In reality this will have little to no effect. Try reading the article again and pay attention to ALL of it this time. Canada will not charge a duty on up to 100,000 vehicles IF and only IF they have 20% Canadian parts content. It also says that they will crate a list of ECE regulations that they will accept, not that any car that meets the ECE regulations will be acceptable.

      So if the mfg wants to avoid the duty they will need to purchase Canadian made parts. Since the Canadian market is so small that means that they would need to use many of those parts on more than just those heading to Canada for it to be cost effective. Since they will only accept some of the Euro regulations that would mean that instead of, for the most part sending Canada cars that meet all US regulations they would need to make a vehicle that meets some US regulation and some Euro regulations. Again not something that would be cost effective for such a small market.

      So in the real world this agreement will not have any significant effect on the vehicles available in Canada nor in the pricing.

      • 0 avatar
        Lou_BC

        @Scoutdude – the story is poorly written. If you look at the Globe and Mail story it clearly outlines exports –
        “Canada, which currently exports about 13,000 vehicles a year to the EU, will be allowed to export up to 100,000 vehicles annually, provided they are at least 20 per cent manufactured in Canada. Vehicles with at least 50 per cent Canadian content will enter duty free and would not be subject to the quota.”
        They are not talking about importation into Canada but exports to the EU.

        The “Canadian content” rule is because the Canadian auto industry has become a puppet of the USA industry.

        These excerpts are also from the Globe and Mail,
        “However, new details were announced Friday on how the deal will address the thorny issue of how Ontario’s manufacturing sector is deeply linked with U.S. production lines.”

        “Should the EU reach a similar Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement with the U.S., the distinctions between a Canadian and U.S.-made car would likely be erased for the purposes of European trade.”

  • avatar
    Pch101

    Is the life of a driver in Europe worth more than one in Latin America? It’s a good question to ask French car-maker Renault, which is selling a potentially more dangerous version of its Sandero model in Latin America.

    The Sandero scored only an “extremely poor” single-star rating in a crash test created to highlight gaps between the safety of cars being sold by major manufacturers in Latin America compared with more “developed” markets such as Europe…

    …I asked Renault why this is; they responded: “The Renault Sandero, sold in South America, conforms to the local laws and regulations.”
    _________

    http://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/renault-one-star-latin-crash-test-ncap

    So much for these global standards that I keep hearing about in the comments section of this website. Apparently, these universal standards are about as real as the Easter Bunny.

    • 0 avatar
      Big Al from Oz

      @Pch101
      Scare tactics again Pch101 and a lack of knowledge, utter failure on your part.

      Like I’ve told you better understand the industry. You try and convey a cocky, intelligent conversation, when in fact its mostly misguided spin. Fool.

      What nation is it? Is it a signatory of the UNECE regs or is it gradually increasing it’s integration into the UNECE?

      Have you bothered to see how new countries are integrated.

      Brazil is in the current position of UNECE integration, so it China for that matter, and many other countries.

      I haven’t found out yet when Brazil will become a signatory of the UNECE and become compliant.

      You see again your American Exceptionalism disregards how hard it is for the less fortunate on this planet.

      Most countries don’t have the cash for the safety features we are able to afford.

      If you are going to tell a story, use the complete story.

      You really take the cake for misinformation and selfishness.

      You can get onto the UNECE Vehicle Harmonisation website and find out which countries are UNECE compliant and which are using UNECE regs to start their own motor vehicle industries.

      Knowledge is great, but knowledge doesn’t get you anywhere, its intelligence that does. Intelligence is the tool to use knowledge. I think you have a disconnect there.

      Your as bad as Mikey/DenverMike.

  • avatar
    Big Al from Oz

    @Pch101
    Here are a couple of links for you to read. It might make you open your eyes. Don’t be scared of the world north and south of the US borders.

    The world has outside of the US has much to offer. Travel, go to developing nations and experience the people, food and culture.

    You will most likely find you will enjoy it and realise how lucky you are to live in the US.

    You will realise how hard some have it just to feed their kids, let alone afford a TV, let alone a car. Just for most to have a set of wheels we take for granted is only a passing dream.

    Mature a little and leave home. I know it’s scary. The first steps always are.

    http://www.globalncap.org/News/News_archive/2013/Pages/LatinNCAPbringsthelatestPhaseresultsMoresafetyprogressinBrazilianmadenewmodels.aspx

    Here is some sobering reading for you.

    http://www.who.int/roadsafety/decade_of_action/plan/plan_english.pdf

    • 0 avatar
      thelaine

      Agree with you Big Al and always enjoy the perspective you bring and your doggedness. I have learned a great deal.

      Safety is one engineering consideration among many. Even U.S. and EU cars obviously could be made much safer if cost and other trade-offs were not involved. In poorer countries, cost is even more of a consideration, so other tradeoffs are made, including some safety considerations. That is the non-emotional, world as it exists perspective.

      Sometimes I think we actually go too far, like with those stupid European pedestrian safety design mandates, which I believe impair driver’s vision and are more expensive and intrusive than teaching European pedestrians how to cross the street.

  • avatar
    Pch101

    (B)ecause the regs on whole vehicles differ in the EU and Japan, the reciprocal recognition of type approval does not apply to completed vehicles. Despite the European automakers’ request for Japan to automatically accept whole vehicles that are type-approved in the EU, Japan still requires Europe-made cars to undergo more testing for Japanese type approval.

    Auto regs in Japan, the EU and the United States are far from being harmonized: Japan and the EU use type approval, but require each other’s cars to undergo more testing. The United States has its own self-certification system. The lack of harmonization makes it difficult to determine which market — if any — has regulations that are truly “unique.”

    http://www.autonews.com/article/20120914/OEM01/120919897/are-japans-auto-regs-nontariff-barriers
    __________

    The EU and Japan make vehicles that can’t be freely sold across each other’s borders. Japanese type approval can delay car launches for months, and the EU claims that Japan is opaque when it comes to the process of granting approvals for advanced technologies.

    Meanwhile, new cars are being built for developing nations that can’t be sold in developed regions such as Europe.

    All of that is an obvious indication that there are no true global standards. So much for this US vs. the world nonsense.

    • 0 avatar
      Big Al from Oz

      @Pch101
      Again, I will have to educate you. When I was a kid, teachers in Australia had a term for people like you. You would have been called ‘thick’ or ‘dense’.

      Why don’t you provide a link that supports your arguments. You can’t you can provide on showing difference in safety, but not support what you claim.

      Many developing nations are not fully UNECE complaint. How hard is that for you to comprehend. These countries are adopting the UNECE model.

      Like I pointed out many of these nations don’t have the cash to build ‘safer’ vehicles.

      Then why doesn’t these countries adopt the US model? This is my argument.

      One of the reasons the Japanese are adopting Euro vehicles (in sales) ahead of US vehicles is because of the UNECE regulations. Remember the UNECE regs are developed to facilitate trade. Not like the US policies that impede trade and create an insular market.

      I think the you will find that if there any problems with trade in autos between Japan and the Euro regions it wouldn’t be designed based.

      I think you had be understand what is going on in the world.

      You constantly come up with bull$hit.

      Are you another on of those UAW clowns? If you are and you are trying to sell the UAW inspired world of protectionism. It will not last and as you can see the Canadians will eventually accept the UNECE standards.

      You are generally incorrect and full of $hit. Learn and expand you mind.

  • avatar
    Pch101

    Now that it has been clearly established that (a) the EU and Japan don’t have the same standards and (b) Latin American requirements are inferior to EU standards, it seems a bit silly that some people would insist that they’re all the same.

  • avatar
    Big Al from Oz

    @Pch101
    So, you are becoming like ruggles and starting new ‘threads’.

    You are wrong:)

    Where did anyone state that the standards are different?

    Japan uses UNECE. Like I stated UNECE regs are flexible, many countries can use them and they can be shaped to suit a countries need.

    But, if the nation is UNECE compliant, the vehicle can be sold in any other UNECE nation. How hard is that to comprehend.

    If two UNECE nations go to war do you think they will import each others vehicles? What’s the difference.

    You are a real fool. Prove me wrong with actual links that are credible. Your opinion, as I’m finding is highly inaccurate.

    Are you a politician?

    • 0 avatar
      wmba

      Big Al from Oz – the expert on everything.

      Japan is not fully UNECE compliant – if it were, the EU would not complain about Japanese compliance rules.

      As for dissing Pch101, you’re on a fool’s errand. He’s been on TTAC for years, providing highly competent commentary.

      You on the other hand are some jumped-up Australian troll, with a mission to just be damn annoying, so far as I can see. And far too shrill to be taken seriously.

      • 0 avatar
        Big Al from Oz

        @wmba
        Am I incorrect? Here’s a link so you UAW/CAW guys can understand where the world is heading in the future.

        A partial signatory???? Japan??????

        Japanese even Australian car can be traded between nations, even Euronations. Why do you think we have great grey markets as well?

        Ever wondered why we have ANCAP? or JNCAP or ENCAP, etc? Is there USNCAP? One day in the future there will be.

        I also stated to Pch101 that the UNECE regulations are there to facilitate trade. These global regulations are designed to allow different nations to continue on as they were. These regulation don’t mean the world will become European or Japanese or Australian, etc.

        No matter what you CAW or UAW guys whine about a change is occurring. Live with it.

        Here a link on FAQs from the UNECE, have a read and convert your CAW and UAW ‘brothers and sisters’.

        Competition seems to scare quite a few of you union guys.

        http://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/trans/main/wp29/WP29-FAQ-2005.pdf

        This link is to a Wikipedia site on the UNECE vehicle regs and what countries signed up to them.

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Forum_for_Harmonization_of_Vehicle_Regulations

      • 0 avatar
        Big Al from Oz

        @wmba
        There is some significant changes occurring globally. I don’t know if you have news in your country (Canada?) or mainly opinion like south of the border. Study what is going on in the world.

        You see, the cost of designing automobiles and manufacturing them is becoming prohibitively expensive, like what occurred in aviation.

        Like aircraft you can no longer just add an engine to an airframe or chassis and sell it. It has become much more complex than that.

        Global harmonisation is a necessity. The companies that can restructure, rationalise and produce the cheapest will win.

        We live in a global market. There will be a handful of regions that will manufacturer vehicles in the future. These will be assembly hubs. Parts will be sourced globally.

        So it will make sense for the manufacturers of the future to all do the same thing in all countries.

        Like I showed to Pch101 the poorer nations are trying to improve vehicle design and safety, but cost is significant in those countries. Their current vehicle safety is better than what the US had less than 3 decades ago and hopefully in 10 years or so they will only be a short way behind us.

        The Brazilian government has realised that motor vehicle related accident actually impact a nations GDP. So they are actively trying to improve their road safety.

        Like I stated the engineering costs of a vehicle with the new technology required will force manufacturers to rationalise.

        It will be hard to determine what handful of manufacturers will remain. But, I will predict GM will be sold.

      • 0 avatar
        Pch101

        “Japan is not fully UNECE compliant”

        To be fair, Japan isn’t violating the rules. That isn’t really the issue.

        The point is that UNECE doesn’t produce a single uniform global safety or emissions standard, as some posters here would have you believe. Member nations have enough autonomy that they are free to accept or reject vehicles that are produced for other markets, and to use their own type approval requirements to keep vehicles out (as the EU and Japan both do) or to build cars that don’t meet western safety standards (as is the case in much of the developing world.)

        This website’s previous editor-in-chief devoted a lot of effort to misrepresenting what UNECE does and doesn’t do. Al is just a dupe, and he doesn’t know enough about this stuff to know that he has been fooled. (The fact that these inaccuracies cater to Al’s anti-American bent doesn’t help.)

  • avatar
    wmba

    It’ll take decades for EU vehicle standards to become law in Canada – the current federal government is so Western Canada oriented, they want the EU deal to allow a few ranchers to sell more beef, and to flog more Alberta oil. Yup, they figure tarsands oil will sell in the EU because of a free trade deal. Fatuous: the EU won’t allow it, any more than they allow importation of US hormone-fed beef or GM grain – they merely accept a few US trade sanctions and tell the US to go screw itself, despite losing a WTO dispute.

    If a hundred artisanal Quebec cheese producers die when overproduced soggy French brie floods supermarkets, then great, says our government, because Quebeckers didn’t vote for the Conservatives and their modern version of parliamentary dictatorship, in itself a case study of how a system can be gerrymandered by ideologues.

    Our federal government is a total disgrace, just made worse by those idealogues currently in power. We’ve been metric for 35 years, but food is still sold in non-standard sizes. 398 ml and 540ml cans, 1.89 litre ice-cream cartons, 180 gram potato chips – the list is endless. Applying Euro standards to standard package types would be great. I’m not holding my breath, though. Judging by the lack of results here, by 2060, Canada would still be following US automotive rules.

    The current Canadian 6.1% motor vehicle import duty from countries other than the US was in response to Canada losing a WTO dispute. Canada had allowed the Big Three to bring in cars made overseas by their subsidiaries at zero import duty. Following the losing decision, instead of letting in all foreign cars duty free, Canada subjected all overseas made cars to the 6.1% import duty, regardless of company ownership. A stupid decision.

    http://www.wto.org/english/res_e/booksp_e/casestudies_e/case9_e.htm

    In order to hide behind not implementing WTO decisions, Canada shrugs and says, “well, that’s a provincial matter, we have no jurisdiction there.” See Ontario funding home-grown “green energy” producers, rather than importing ready made German or Japanese stuff. Ontario is not a sovereign body recognized by the WTO, but it swings great weight within the country.

    Of course, the US is about to start free trade talks with the EU. That should be a laugh and a half. Just as in Canada, States have constitutional rights that can’t be bargained away to some trade deal. That won’t stop the US from promising anything, secure in the knowledge that individual states will tell various officious EU commissioners to insert their feet up their asses and try to walk home, once the trade deal is in place.

    The EU has no federal countries in the sense of the US and Canada, and cannot really wrap their minds around the idea of tier two governments not obeying a national law. Perhaps I’m being too dogmatic on the “federal” theme – Germany and Belgium are federal states, and the states in Germany are starting to assert themselves. See the A/C refrigerant and VW share-veto disputes. However, there is nothing like California, Mississippi, Louisiana, Texas or especially Quebec, all of whom like to think of themselves as separate “kingdoms” if you will. They’re quite willing to tell their national governments to go pound sand.

    The EU will be well and truly snookered, is my guess. California told the feds to stick their emission rules, and implemented their own. In Canada, British Columbia and Quebec photocopied the California rules. Now California is on board with the Feds on CAFE, but the Canadian provinces haven’t changed their rules. California could get annoyed with the Feds again in the future and make its own rules, probably breaking free trade deal regulations – but who is going to make them obey? Nobody, that’s who.

    Ah yes, it will be a real learning procedure for EU bureaucrats to discover that some folks will tell them to take a hike, and there will not be any way for them to seek redress. Hair-pulling out time. Sure, they could initiate WTO complaints, win the dispute, and like the Ontario green energy initiative, not have anything happen.

    I’m looking forward to seeing how all this pans out. It’s one thing to gaily natter about high-flown ideals, stand around for photo ops with equally stunned politico bureaucrats lauding each other for their far-sighted plans to equalize trade (and screw third world countries by loaning money they could not pay back in the 1970s and ’80s), and the nitty gritty reality of dirty deals, perks for pals and the usual bulls**t endemic with the bigheads who rise to run things.

    Speaking of which, BAFO for Secretary General of the UN!

    • 0 avatar
      Big Al from Oz

      @wmba
      You CAW guys are little scared? Studying how to build a UNECE complaint car? Don’t worry it isn’t that much different.

      I think it quite entertaining.

    • 0 avatar
      danio3834

      The worst I keep hearing about this deal seems to be about those poor cheese makers in Quebec. Squeaky wheel?

      If their cheese can stand on its own, it shouldn’t have much trouble competing with soggy French brie which still needs to be imported and by all rights should still cost more.

    • 0 avatar
      danio3834

      “We’ve been metric for 35 years, but food is still sold in non-standard sizes. 398 ml and 540ml cans, 1.89 litre ice-cream cartons, 180 gram potato chips – the list is endless.”

      This is one of your main bitches about our Federal Government, that they don’t force food producers to use standard metric sized containers?

      When the majority of our food comes from a non-metric country, that’s what we get. Forcing producers and distributors to make specialty containers for a market smaller than some US states would only drive the cost up. As if things aren’t expensive enough in Canada.

  • avatar
    Lou_BC

    @wmba – Intersting comments.I see that you are a fan of the Harper Government. Things will be so much better once pretty Justin Trudeau and the former permanent governing party gets into power.
    Must be from Ontario since you have all sorts of warm fuzzies about Alberta. Ontario has a big struggle ahead of itself to become once again the centre of Canada’s universe.
    Ain’t gonna happen as long as oil prices are up and the Chinese or Mexicans can build stuff cheaper than Ontarians or Americans.
    @Pch111 – interesting spin. South American crappy safety standards and the exploitation of those standards the fault of UNECE? Do we blame the UN for Somalia?


Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Subscribe without commenting

Recent Comments

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Staff

  • Contributing Writers

  • Jack Baruth, United States
  • Brendan McAleer, Canada
  • Marcelo De Vasconcellos, Brazil
  • Vojta Dobes, Czech Republic
  • Matthias Gasnier, Australia
  • W. Christian 'Mental' Ward, Abu Dhabi
  • Mark Stevenson, Canada
  • Cameron Aubernon, United States
  • J Emerson, United States