Nov 24
Join Robert Lamb & our team on the Corus Radio network
Be sure to listen to the Roy Green Show today at 2:00 P.M. EST across Canada on the Corus radio network. Please call in to express your support.
- - U.S. Dealers
- Links
- Partners
Nov 24
Be sure to listen to the Roy Green Show today at 2:00 P.M. EST across Canada on the Corus radio network. Please call in to express your support.
November 24th, 2007 at 12:38 pm
Here are some of the local stations you can listen in on:
940 AM in Montreal
Cfpl 980 London
Sask 650 Saskachewan
CHQR Calgary QR77
Chad ed 630
CJME rejina
CjOB win
CKNW Vancouver
If you cannot find a local station to listen in on then you can listen in LIVE on the station’s web site at http://www.940news.com/sch_Saturday.php. There is a button near the top left of the page labbelled “RADIO Listen LIVE”.
Please listen in and if at all possible call in and lend your support.
To Robert, Serge and the gang, thanks for all of you r hard efforts.
netdog
November 24th, 2007 at 4:23 pm
I thought the program covered the topic very well. Members successfully tied the story together from many points clearly demonstrating the enormous fiasco at hand! Time for Government to act responsibly and act NOW. Legally put these drivers back on the road!
Kudos to Mr. Green for assisting in bringing this subject to immediate light. His input is appreciated by MANY.
November 24th, 2007 at 5:01 pm
Do you people realize that there IS a border betweeen our two seperate
and sovereign nations. Canada and the United States of America are not
the same country socially, or economically. Maybe we should find out what
other goods are cheaper in the US and even elsewhere in the world. Do you
know that every dollar spent in the US helps support the war in the Mideast.
November 24th, 2007 at 5:28 pm
Bob, you sure want to confuse our problem with a lot of smoke. Are you doing that on purpose or are you just that ignorant about our country and its’ neighbour? Any idea how many Canadian jobs (including my own) rely on trade between our two countries? Why don’t you google it and report back on the meaning of what you find. There’s probably a few U.S. marines walking around in Iraq with some of YOUR own dollars in their wallet. If you don’t like it, move to Iran and enjoy a new American influence free life.
I think Roy Green hit the nail on the head with his show: it’s a very bad situation when the government is acting punitively against Canadians when the Minister of the department responsible pledged publically to do the opposite. It’s up to him to fix this debacle. I pray that he does something sooner than later.
November 24th, 2007 at 6:25 pm
Bob, no one is ignoring the border between our countries. we have all done exactly as the gov’t
requires and followed every law to bring the cars we bought across the border only to find that the
regulations had changed AFTER we had done what the gov’t told us to do.
if you want to debate
free trade then please do it on an appropriate site. you are just muddying the water here. At this
point in time Canadians and our gov’t have embraced free trade (whether or not that is a good idea
is a decision that we as a country need to make) and it is ridiculous that when the Canadian
citizen finally benefits, those citizen’s are blamed for a political decision that occured over a decade ago.
November 24th, 2007 at 7:01 pm
The gov’t has finally taken steps to protect the livelyhood of hard working Canadian taxpayers in the retail automotive and recreational vehicle industry. The short term savings of a few auto importers at the expense of Canadian citizens trying to make a living and paying taxes in this country is hardly worth getting worked up about. Six months ago this was not an issue and six months from now when the American economy becomes stronger and the Canadian dollar drops back to a normal level vs, the greenback we wont be having this discussion, but when the Canadian consumer cant buy the vehicle he wants because recent demand dictates that the US gets increased new vehicle allottment, who is going to be the biggest loser? This did happen in 2000-2001 when the Americans were buying in Canada due to a stong economy and a strong dollar.
November 24th, 2007 at 10:19 pm
Bob, you seem to think that the gov’t is operating here on some grand principle of helping taxpayers in the automotive industry. This situation we are all caught in has to do with a new anti-theft regulation that the gov’t botched its attempt at introducing. this legisation is 4 years old and the gov’t and the automotive industry knew about its existance they just didn’t bother to tell the Canadian citizen until 2 months AFTER its enforcement date. If the gov’t is trying to help the automotive industry then come clean and do it the appropriate way; not by changing laws after the fact (laws that have nothing to do with helping the automotive industry in it’s hour of need) and not showing any concern for those citizens who were caught in their bungling.
moreover, I really don’t understand your argument, I think. If I understand your underlying argument, we should willingly give up our savings now (or incur a loss, for some of us) for a potential larger Canadian vehicle allotment in the future? Seriously?
November 25th, 2007 at 11:59 am
Only a small percentage of Canadians work in the auto industry. The should be treated as should any other Canadian. As Western Canadian, I was really embarassed when Ralph Klein said “Let those easten bastards freeze”. It is similarly embarassing to hear an autoworker say that the rest of Canada should pay more for cars so they can have jobs.
Unless the Government treats all Canadians fairly which it has not done here, then Canada will continue have a divisive debate.
It is not these few 1000 people who are only being shabbily and unfairly treated by our Government. All Canadians who buy new and used cars in Canada are being shabbily treated which are and have been overpriced relative to US cars regardless of what the exchange rate has been for the past five years. When the C$ was low, used car prices and thus new car prices were maintained by the supply in Canada being reduced sustantially by the huge American market removing millions of cars from the Canadian market. Many Canadian car retailers and wholesalers benefitted financially from this. The sword cuts both ways.
My understanding is that the intent of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms is for every Canadian to have the right to spend their money how and where they want. Transport Canada’s failure to harmonize regulations with the US (our major trading partner) despite having five years to do so is the root cause of the problem being experienced by those who are being told to get their car out of Canada and those of us who will be forced to pay more for cars because there is no harmonization.
Thanks to those who appeared on the radio to make the public aware of this issue which has been masked for many years by the exchange rate.
This is not just an anti-theft issue. The real issue is harmonization………………….
Don’t know how to get the image of table of the CAPC initiatives that have not been addressed to install here so if you want to see what they are go to the table in http://capcinfo.ca/english/reports/d…egHarmon_e.pdf
Transport Canada hasn’t made much progress since 2002 or for that matter 2005 when the auto manufacturers through CAPC were pressing…..
http://capcinfo.ca/english/reports/r….html#overview
Canadian Automotive Partnership Council June 2005
Security and Prosperity Partnership Consultation
Vehicle Manufacturers in the North American Environment The Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America
….Canada’s automotive industry, through CAPC, and consistent with the industry in the US is pleased to present its consensus on priorities for action by the three governments working together on the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP)……..
Vehicle Safety Standards:
Background:
In general, Canadian safety policy has a consistent structure with the U.S. policy. The Canadian Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (CMVSS) are largely similar to, and patterned after, the American Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS), and flows naturally from the high level of integration in the industry. However, exceptions between the two nations’ safety standards do exist with additional exceptions being contemplated.
In addition to the actual standards, differences exist between Canadian and American authorities with respect to how vehicle certification is undertaken to show compliance with those standards. Significant differences exist between government and industry regarding the extent to which engineering judgment and electronic simulation should be accommodated for vehicle certification and the level of documentation necessary to demonstrate full compliance. Transport Canada’s position would appear to be significantly different than that of the U.S. NHTSA (National Highway Traffic Safety Administration) and is viewed by industry as an impediment to innovative practices to the testing and early commercialization of advanced technologies.
Back to the top
(1) CMVSS 208 - Frontal impact occupant protection standards
Issue:
• 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.
• Industry has formally requested data from Transport Canada that supports the need for different belted occupant standards for chest deflection in Canada than in the US. (chest deflection is one component of this amendment).
• 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 approx 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.
• The goal is to harmonize the requirements of CMVSS 208 with the equivalent belted requirements of US regulation FMVSS 208.
Current Status:
• The auto industry has serious concerns with the Transport Canada Benefits and Cost analysis, and these concerns continue to be raised with Transport Canada. Department officials have agreed to undertake additional cost/benefit analysis based on issues raised by industry.
Back to the top
(2) Vehicle Safety Electronic Certification
Issue:
• Transport Canada should formally recognize electronic certification consistent with the interpretation of the US National Highway Safety Traffic Administration (NHTSA). Since the introduction of motor vehicle safety regulations in Canada and the United States, manufacturers have certified compliance with the regulatory requirements based on robust design processes and testing protocols, and manage production compliance through rigorous manufacturing processes. This electronic certification approach is the cornerstone of North American vehicle manufacturing and has been successful for many years .Manufacturers have utilized engineering analysis and judgment, and electronic simulation techniques in their certification processes, however, unlike NHTSA, Transport Canada does not formally recognize these certification tools.
• Transport Canada should accept manufacturers’ use of engineering judgment and electronic simulation in the certification of vehicles to facilitate the introduction of advanced safety technologies in a more rapid and efficient manner, thus providing Canadians access to the best available safety technology sooner than would otherwise be possible. Any future amendment to the Act should formally recognize the application of electronic certification and engineering judgment as valid certification tools, consistent with the interpretation of NHTSA. Furthermore, with this recognition in the Act, there should be no additional certification/physical testing burden for manufacturers or a requirement for manufacturers to provide audit test vehicles on a no-charge basis to Transport Canada as this further testing would be redundant. In this regard, the industry is encouraged by recent correspondence from Transport Canada that indicates that proposed changes to the MVSA are designed to permit the use of electronic simulation as a certification tool. The industry looks forward to further discussions with Transport Canada on this subject.
Back to the top
(3) CMVSS 215 - Bumpers
Issue:
• 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.
• There is no evidence that 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. As a result the difference in regulatory standards should be eliminated, and given Canada’s market size, the U.S. standards should be adopted.
Back to the top
(4) Vehicle Immobilizers
Issue:
• 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, Transport Canada has amended the Motor Vehicle Safety Regulations to require immobilizers on all new vehicles under 4 356 kg gross vehicle weight, starting with the 2008 model year (effective September 1, 2007).
Back to the top
(5) CMVSS 102 - Transmission Controls (Brake shift and clutch starter interlocks)
Issue:
• CMVSS 102 requires vehicles to have an interlock which prevents the transmission gear selector, on vehicle equipped with automatic transmissions, from being shifted out of ‘Park’ into any other position, unless the brake pedal is depressed. This feature is designed to prevent unintended acceleration if the driver gets the pedals confused.
• The standard also requires a clutch starter interlock on vehicles equipped with manual transmissions to prevent a vehicle from being started in gear with the clutch engaged.
Current Status:
• Revised starting requirements to enable hybrid vehicles to start on demand, while retaining the brake-shift and clutch-starter interlock functions.
Back to the top
(6) Additional list of unique Canadian requirements:
• 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
Back to the top
ii. Environmental Regulations and Fuel Economy:
Background:
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.
Back to the top
4. Future planning and next steps
In conclusion, Canada’s automotive industry commends the Government of Canada for launching the Security and Prosperity Partnership. Recognizing the highly integrated nature of our industry, we would like to play a strong role in the development of this new approach and framework that arises from the Partnership. This document is intended to outline a number of areas that the auto industry has identified as significant impediments to North American trade and ultimately global competitiveness. We look forward to working constructively and closely with the Government on priority issues that will improve our mutual security and shared prosperity.
Back to the top
5. Annex - Short-Term Priority Actions
Security Agenda
1) Working with the private sector and all levels of government necessary, develop and implement contingency plans that will ensure that movement of low-risk, pre-approved travelers and goods; namely those in the Free and Secure Trade (FAST) and NEXUS programs, under all security conditions at critical border crossings, including those linking southern Ontario to the U.S. This would complement the original stated intention of the programs. This is a bilateral Canada and US initiative with a suggested timeframe of 120 days.
2) Expedite the Binational Commission reviewing the options for a new border crossing at Windsor-Detroit wherever possible. In the short-term, all parties on the Canadian side are urged to work together constructively to implement interim infrastructure improvements that will facilitate the flow of low-risk trade and travelers such as suggested in the Schwartz Report. This is a Canada-only initiative with a suggested timeframe of 12 months.
Prosperity Agenda
1) Transport Canada should harmonize proposed amendments to CMVSS 208 with the equivalent belted requirements of US FMVSS 208. The estimated costs to the Canadian industry for product redesign work necessary to meet the unique Canadian requirements under the given scenario could amount to more than $200 million. Additionally, depending on the timing of potential regulatory changes and individual vehicle development timelines, there could be additional costs associated with the production of new tooling and equipment where necessary that could add to hundreds of millions of dollars of cost for the industry. This is a Canada-only initiative with a suggested timeline for plan development of 120 days.
2) Transport Canada should formally recognize electronic certification consistent with NHTSA and accept manufacturers’ use of engineering judgement. Industry estimates that the costs avoided with using electronic certification instead of vehicle crash tests is approximately $110,000 to $150,000 per physical crash. The costs associated with physical crash tests are affected by the type of individual test performed. Currently, all manufacturers are using electronic certification for a portion of their testing but because of the variability in the costs of the different tests and the level of usage of electronic certification by each manufacturer, it is difficult to estimate the current amount of costs avoided as a result of using electronic certification. Under the current scenario, the amount of electronic certification is modest, but the industry plans to continue to increase its reliance on electronic certification. As a result, any change in the MVSA that would limit the use of electronic certification would lead to serious additional costs. Given industry expectations, in the coming years, it is safe to assume that any action to limit the use of electronic certification would lead to additional costs for the industry in vehicle crash tests potentially totaling hundreds of millions of dollars. This is a Canada-only initiative with a suggested timeline of 90 days.
3) Environment Canada should review plans to test vehicles being made available in Canada for in-use emissions compliance and work to rationalize testing with EPA. Canada’s Tier 2 regulatory requirements are largely harmonized with the EPA Tier 2 regulatory framework for vehicle emissions. Given that almost all vehicles being sold in Canada comply with the Canadian Tier 2 regulatory requirements on the basis of having EPA Tier 2 certification approval, and EPA will already be conducting in-use emissions compliance testing, the work of the Canadian emission testing facility could be coordinated to ensure that testing is not duplicative. Where possible, Environment Canada and the EPA should share testing data. This is a bilateral initiative with a suggested timeline of 120 days.
4) Canadian and US federal regulatory agencies should establish protocols for early consultation between industry and regulators prior to pursuing vehicle regulations. This is a bilateral initiative with a suggested timeline calling for a plan to be developed by the end of 2005 with implementation thereafter.
November 25th, 2007 at 12:56 pm
Curtis, I would argue that there are 2 (at least) issues here.
The first one (the one that has kickstarted this whole mess is the fact that many Canadians who have followed the law found that the law was changed 2 months AFTER a new standard was implemented. Whether or not the new standard is valid, useful, harmonized, useless or obnoxious doesn’t matter to this first issue of those Canadians who have been caught in this gov’t bungled new standard. Those people should be dealt with immediately as they are suffering because of gov’t incompetence. (Ironically, I bought a new Prius for my wife (and son) so that they would be safer with side curtain airbags etc… than they are now in their 1990 Toyota Corolla and now I’m told that my new Prius is less safe - or at least less legally safe!!!- than a 17 year old car?!?!?)
The second issue that you talk about is whether Canada should be moving to a more harmonized system with the US
There are many other issues involved as well:
1. free trade,
2. why do manufacturer’s have so much power as to provide their own oversight when determining which standards are met and which forms they decide to supply…,
3. why the gov’t seems to be catering to multinationals demands rather than to citizen’s valid concerns,
4. why does the Minister of Transport (Lawerence Cannon) promise to help the people caught in this problem (a problem NOT of their own making) on Tuesday and by Friday start kicking cars out of Canada
and so on…
Again, this is an excellent debate to be having since there are obviously so many messed up issues when it comes to discussing harmonization. And lack of harmonization, at least at this point in time, seems to keep power in the multinational’s hands and keeps Canadian citizen’s from importing cars (which we are legally allowed to do)
But, to repeat, these are two separte issues and those people who have been caught in the gov’t bungling should be dealt with first and foremost (with justice and compassion -after all we do live in Canada!). And while dealing with those people, a bright light needs to shine on the alarming and growing list of issues that is falling out of this situation. The Canadian gov’t is supposed to be a representation of the people’s will not sitting in the deep pockets and doing the bidding of multinational corporations.
November 25th, 2007 at 5:18 pm
What I find interesting is that the Canadian car dealer makes a few thousand dollars on a car sale and the US car dealer makes a few thousand $ on a car sale - so if the price of the car is $10,000 different - where do the profits go - if it is a Japaneese company - it goes to Japan - it is is an American company it goes to the USA. It doesn’t go to pay for health care as some would say. Buying at very high prices help a little the Can. dealer - buying in the US leave a Canadian with $10,000 more in his/her pocket to buy other things and pay for his/her children’s education etc. Let the North American Free Trade Agreement work.
November 25th, 2007 at 11:51 pm
You just dont get it. The USA is a different country. Differnt social programs, different economic system DIFFERENT country. BUY IN CANADA and support our tax base support our economy. Why are you so intent on spending your hard earned CANADIAN dollars in a foreign land?
November 26th, 2007 at 8:42 am
Bob,
You’re the one who doesn’t understand. Saving $10k means $10k more IN Candan to support our system.
Buy in Canada for $10k more. Dealer profit = $3k and $7k to Japan , Europe or US.
Buy in the US for $10k less, $10k more in Canada.
On the above example, there is a net benefit of $7k to the Canadian economy by buying in the US.
November 26th, 2007 at 11:10 am
What about the dealer in Canada who employs Canadians, who supports local sports teams and local carities etc.
November 26th, 2007 at 11:59 am
The extra $7k in my pocket can support more charities of my choice. I’m not going to pay a higher price just for those reasons alone.
That $7k will be spent locally rather than going to Japan,US or Europe.
Are you telling me that I should just shut-up and accept gouging? Why should I support car dealers if their own franchiser don’t. Canadian dealers are sheep. They are getting ripped-off as well by the car companies but they blame us for wanting lower prices. If car prices were more in line, their business would be booming. Canadians do not want car prices to be identical but 30%-40% is not justifiable.
When our dollar dropped, they raised prices by playing with the option packages.
Besides, I’m sure all those car dealer employees shop for the best deals themsleves.
My point of view is that Canadians shouldn’t have to go through this process if importation to get fair pricing.
But the people who do will put pressure on car companies. It’s called arbitrage and car companies do it themselves with part and labour. People are getting laid-off in Canada at auto-plants and part plants because these very same car companies are shopping for cheaper components. Do you think they care about these employees?
They’re still overcharging us for cars and at the same time laying-off people. They are treating us like second class citizens despite all the handouts we stupid Canadians give in subsidies. All in vain.
November 26th, 2007 at 12:28 pm
Bob, looks like you didn’t even try to learn about North American trade like I had asked you. The U.S. and Canada are joined at the hip. More jobs come from healthy competitive trade than from government subsidized social make work programs. That’s how trade works and that’s how it has been working under NAFTA.
I’m sorry you’re in favor of the restrictive behaviour that ultimately will costs Canada jobs. I believe that Canada can do better than that for its’ citizens.
December 17th, 2007 at 10:34 pm
Hello webmaster…Thanks for the nice read, keep up the interesting posts..what a nice Monday