Dec 01
A balanced reponse to the proposed new regulation
The changes proposed appear to be a breath of fresh air for many. It might not appear to meet everyone’s needs 100%. We have been invited by Transport Canada to present our position on the new regulation. That’s why we need to think this one through and we invite you to submit all your ideas and comments on this site (comments).
- Our immediate goal is to make sure that our friend and teammate Carl can come through with his promise to his two young children. He promised to drive them to Disneyland prior to the holidays. We are sure there are many anxious families with holiday plans on hold, and we want then all to enjoy this special time of the year.
- Please ask friends and family to sign our on-line petition
December 1st, 2007 at 1:39 pm
In my opinion the proposed amendment is skilful, reasoned and thoughtfully crafted to deal with the immobilizer inadmissibility problem. I agree there are other issues such as pricing, the difficulty in obtaining recall information and so on but it would be a big mistake at this time to introduce any other proposals or issues that would complicate this matter and delay the amendment becoming law.
I would expect comment from the auto manufacturers that this amendment creates an uneven playing field. It forces them to continue to adhere to CMVS 114 but lets the retail consumer import vehicles that do not comply with the standard. After all their retail market is the very same consumer.
Notwithstanding the apparent collusion between the Canadian and American subsidiaries of the major manufacturers to protect their markets, the auto manufacturers may even argue this amendment will affect their competitive position and result in Canadian job losses.
The manufacturers will not give up easy in protecting their Canadian cash cow.
December 1st, 2007 at 2:07 pm
I think Allan is quite correct — the manufacturers will argue that they are being forced to comply with CMVSS 114 whereas imports from south of the border will not have to comply with the Canadian standard. Had they played fair, and had they been honest when disclosing the true details of their US immobilizers, I might have had some (not much) sympathy for them. However, they have not been fair or honest, and they’ve tried to have their cake and eat it many times over. They abused their rights and their powers, and I strongly suspect that our government will not buy their arguments or let them get away with it.
It’s terribly important to make the point that the proposed changes will still deter young car thieves, and that they will pose no security threat to Canadians. These were the underlying principles behind the introduction of CMVSS 114, and they remain unaffected by the proposed changes. As good Canadians, surely this is what we all want … even the car manufacturers!!!!!!
One dealer I spoke with south of the border said that he’s selling 70 cars a month to Canadians. He also stated categorically (and he should know) that most of the purchasers would not, and could not, have purchased in Canada because they couldn’t afford to do so. Bottom line — most of the sales have not been lost to Canadian dealers as they were never theirs to have in the first place. On the upside, there are 70 cars a month that Canadian dealers can service and repair. How on earth can this be bad for our economy or for our auto industry.
I know first hand that the car I’d like to purchase is $14K less expensive in the USA. I am 150% certain that I will not buy it in Canada. So, how can my Canadian dealer/importer feel that his sale is being stolen away from him. It was never his sale to “own”.
Sorry, I’ve rattled on for long enough. Problem is, the more I think about it the more angry I become. I used to live in “rip off Britain” and we were able to re-align the car industry there. It’s Canada’s turn now — let’s not allow ourselves to be known as “rip-off Canada”.
December 1st, 2007 at 5:11 pm
If Transport Canada takes a tough stand with the OEM’s and forces them to come up with technical data to prove why vehicles can’t be imported then this amendment would satisfy me,however as it appears to be drawn up the OEM’s can just leave the vehicle inadmissible and say it is not due to the immobilizer.It is still based on the Honour System and they have proven they don’t have any honour.
December 1st, 2007 at 5:49 pm
Ted, with respect, I cannot agree with the first part of your statement. The last thing any of us want is for TC to give the OEM’s a chance to waste another 6 to 12 months drafting the “rules of engagement” for how they can share technical data that proves why a given vehicle is either admissible or inadmissible. This would be a nightmare.
The cleanest approach, and the practical one, is the proposed amendment that TC have drafted. It’s fundamentally really clean, and, it fully upholds the intent of the CMVSS 114 regulations.
The OEM’s have proven what a disreputable rabble they really are. Please let’s not give them another chance to prove that they’re even worse than we initially thought!!
December 1st, 2007 at 5:50 pm
Since Transport Canada has invited you then it would be nice if you could mention the “recall letter can only be issued by BMW Canada” issue to put it on their radar. However, it’s important to focus on the CMVSS 114 issue to ensure that it becomes law quickly and allows imports that are currently sitting in Canadian driveways to be registered so that people can get on with their lives.
December 1st, 2007 at 11:17 pm
I hope those of you who have e-mailed any Member of the Government including but not limited to the Transport Minister or Mr. Davis of Transport Canada and have stated that you are in agreement with the proposed amendment with respect to CMVSS114 or are considering the proposed Amendment will consider your position after reading the following:
I believe that the amendment appears to have be drafted with the interests of the the auto manufacturers as the primary purpose. Of course those with “a car with no country” will be taken care of. It is within the power of the Government of Canada to correct their mistake immediately and not have the people with “a car with no country” waiting for weeks or maybe months depending on the lobbying effort mounted by the various stakeholders. The proposed Amendment is a quick fix to placate those who have created this website and get relief for Transport Canada from thousands of irate Canadians. These people were simply seeking what was their right in the first place. I believe that unless political pressure is brought to bear on the Government, Transport Canada and the automakers will have the status quo notwithstanding the proposed Amendment being adopted.
In my humble opinion,this is not acceptable as:
The average Canadian is not going to import a motor vehicle. Most will be looking to be provided with delivery and financing at a Canadian dealership near their home. However, the proposed Amendment does not provide Canadian dealers with access to the U.S. vehicles with immobilizers to a US standard. They will have vehicles that are priced to what the closed Canadian market will bear so anyone who wants to purchase in Canada will pay the higher Canadian price. Dealers will not bring cars into Canada if they have to buy them at the “retail level” as stated in the proposed Amendment. This is unfair to those Canadians who wish to purchase locally and to the dealers of Canada.
Manufacturers preventing their US dealers from selling new 2008 vehicles to Canadians makes the change in the immobilizer standard irrelevant excepting for those who had already bought vehicles and could not license them because of Transport Canada changing the rules. The proposed Amendment by Transport Canada giving Canadians the right to import vehicles with immobilizers to the US standard will be of little benefit if the manufacturers will not allow them to buy the cars.
This is an example of one Canadian’s experience:
“I saw your post on Corvette Forum. In October of 2007 I purchased a new vehicle from a GM dealer in Tennessee. I was dealing with the owner of the dealership and he knew I was Canadian and from Canada. I paid for the vehicle via bank draft which was cashed and I arranged transport for the vehicle. I was then told by the dealer that the local GM Representative advised him that it was against GM policy to sell to Canadians and he was forced by GM to refund my money. I have a bill of sale, a copy of the bank draft, and a copy of the dealership check for the refund that GM forced him to pay.”
The proposed amendment:
Para. (4.1) “that has been sold at the retail level in the United States and”
raises a few questions:
1. Does the word “retail” prevent the purchase of a new or used vehicle from:
a. an individual in the United States
b. a wholesaler in the United States?
c. an wholesale auction in the United States? (e.g. dealer auctions like Manheim / Adessa or Great Lakes Auction)
d. a retail auction in the United States? (like Barrett-Jackson or the many other auctions where new and used vehicles are auctioned to individuals)
e. a franchised dealer of an auto company in the United States who is willing to sell for less than MSRP or on a wholesale basis
2. Notwithstanding the Sherman Act (anti-competition) in the United States, what impact does the amendment have on the conduct of the manufacturer who does business in Canada with respect to coercing or contractually obligating their dealers in the United States to not sell new cars to Canadians. If this is the case, any requirement for a sale “at retail” would not permit an individual from purchasing a new car from a U.S. dealer. What do we expect Transport Canada to do to rectify this situation…turn it over to the Canadian Competition Board?
3. Does “at the retail level” restrict a Canadian dealer who wants to import new or used vehicles from the US for sale to his customers. Most Canadians will not go to the U.S. to import a car as they have heard about the nightmare of those with “cars without a country” and many simply do not want to take the effort, have the financial resources and accordingly would prefer the convenience of having a Canadian dealer do it all for them. Some dealers have been offering this service to their customers who want or have found used cars in the US. Regulations should not penalize the dealers. Dealers should, if there is any benefit to importing new or used vehicles, be able to benefit from it and pass at least part of the benefit on to their customers.
Proposed Amendment sponsored by Transport Canada:
REGULATIONS AMENDING THE MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY REGULATIONS (IMPORTATION OF VEHICLES - SECTION 12)
AMENDMENT
1. Section 12 of the Motor Vehicle Safety Regulations (see footnote 11) is amended by adding the following after subsection (4):
(4.1) For the purposes of subsection 7(2) of the Act, a vehicle that has been sold at the retail level in the United States and that has not been certified by the manufacturer as conforming to subsection 114(4) of Schedule IV to these Regulations may be imported into Canada despite not being certified to conform to subsection 114(4) if
(a) the vehicle was fitted at the time of manufacture with an electronic immobilization system; or
(b) unless the manufacturer has indicated in writing that the vehicle cannot be fitted with an immobilization system, the person importing the
vehicle states in their declaration that the vehicle
(i) will be fitted with an immobilization system that conforms to National Standard of Canada CAN/ULC-S338-98, entitled Automobile Theft Deterrent Equipment and Systems: Electronic Immobilization (May 1998), published by the Underwriters’ Laboratories of Canada, before it is presented for registration under the laws of a province, and
(ii) will be taken, within 45 days after its importation, to an inspection station authorized by the registrar of imported vehicles to carry out an inspection function to determine that the vehicle has been made to conform to the standard.
If you have not already read it, you may be interested in the following which appeared on the http://www.carswithoutborders.com website:
“I am happy to announce that I think we are flying to Michigan to pick up our truck next week. All of this hoopla is regarding an immobilizer device. We had the US dealer check our truck and give us that part number. For the GMC Sierra 2500HD Duramax the part #15845229 in case anyone needs to know. I have called my General Mortors dealership here in Canada, St Albert to be exact and they have confirmed that it is the same part number of the device here that is on its Canadian version of the truck.
Just to be sure that ours has the CSA approval, we are going to have the $200 part reinstalled on our truck, even though its the same one thats already on there. Just to proove Transport Canada that they are liars, and that they are not admitting my truck because of other reasons. How can they deny my truck if it’s got the part installed by a certified dealership? I will remortgage my house to hire a lawyer to sue the government if they do, because I have complied with every single thing they asked.
From http://www.carswithoutborders.com/2007/11/29/gms-stance-on-anti-theft-devices-all-smoke-and-mirrors/#more-93
There are posts on http://www.carswithoutborders.com which deal with the long history of exploitation of the Canadian car buyer by the manufacturers aided and abetted by Transport Canada.
The links to these comments are at:
http://www.carswithoutborders.com/get-involved/#comment-95
and
http://www.carswithoutborders.com/get-involved/#comment-144
It concerns me that our submissions are to be made to Transport Canada. I do not believe that Transport Canada is an impartial arbiter in this case. I believe that in these type of situations, those with a past history relative to the matter have an interest in seeing the status quo prevail. Someone outside Transport Canada, such as a judge should accept and scrutinize the suggestions and recommendations of those with an interest in this matter. The judge could ask for third party assistance if required. This not only applies to this proposed amendment but to the whole Canadian Motor Vehicle Safety Standard which after five years of effort by the auto manufacturers has not been harmonized with the U.S. despite strong support for adoption of the position of the Canadiand Automotive Parnership Council (”CAPC”). Given the cost to the Canadian public of the existing Canadian Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, which result in non-tariff trade barriers, a judicial enquiry is justified.
Unless there is complete harmonization, the bureaucrats at Transport Canada and the auto manufacturers are going to be able to continue to play the misinformation game with the consumer and the higher prices will remain in effect in Canada. How many more times will Canadians be disadvantage by their dealings with Transport Canada over these standards that should have been harmonized several years ago.
There is alot more than the immobilizer issue at stake.
Please review the coments of the CAPC as set out below. I believe that you will conclude that the Canadian public is not being provided with a greater level of safety than the U.S. standard would provide. Why has Transport Canada not dealt with the harmonization issue in a timely manner.
ORIGINS OF HARMONIZATION
Since 2002, Transport Canada bureaucrats appear to have scuttled motor vehicle regulation harmonization with the US. NAFTA harmonization of motor vehicle regulations between Canada and the U.S. was an initiative that was started by former Transport Minister Allan Rock in June 2002 by the formation of the Canadian Automotive Partnership Council (”CAPC”). CAPC consists of the stakeholders in the harmonization process including Transport Canada and motor vehicle manufacturers.
WHAT TRANSPORT CANADA HAS DONE TO PREVENT HARMONIZATION FROM OCCURRING - RESULT - HIGHER CANADIAN CAR PRICES
Excerpts from:
Canadian Automotive Partnership Council
Regulatory Harmonization Working Group
In the May 4, 2007 Report referred to below, it was stated that “No regulations have been harmonized since the last CAPC meeting.”
(1) Canadian Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (”CMVSS”) 208 - Frontal impact occupant protection standards
May 4, 2007 Report
- Canada has not demonstrated that there is a field problem with the current occupant protection systems. With a non-harmonized regulation, Canada risks foregoing the benefits of U.S. advanced systems or compelling more expensive unique Canadian variants of vehicles, or both.
- TC has hired a U.S. academic to conduct additional cost benefit analysis and risk analysis.
- Revised proposals continue to seek unique Canadian requirements, so this issue is coded yellow
- It has been seven years since FMVSS 208 was finalized and TC still has not completed its analysis.
June 2005 Report
- Transport Canada has proposed requirements for Canadian Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (CMVSS) 208 for Frontal Occupant Protection that are not harmonized with the belted requirements contained in the recently amended U.S. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) 208.
- Transport Canada acknowledges that no Canadian field data is available that would specifically support the intended unique Canadian chest protection requirements. In the absence of unique Canadian data, industry can see no technological reason for a different chest deflection standard in Canada.
- Transport Canada’s proposal would create a further disharmonized regulation despite the fact that they have failed to demonstrate material public benefit that would otherwise be observed from harmonizing with the equivalent U.S. 208. Transport Canada’s own benefit analysis, which the industry feels is overstated, indicates only a ½ of 1% reduction in fatalities and injuries. Considering that approx 40% of all vehicle related fatalities and injuries are still related to impaired driving and approximately 35% are related to unbelted occupants, the government may want to consider focusing their efforts on areas of occupant safety that present greater opportunities for reduction, such as these driver behaviors.
(2) CMVSS 215 - Bumpers
May 4, 2007 Report
- Canada has unique bumper requirements (damageability) and is not
currently planning to harmonize this standard.
- This requirement has precluded products from the Canadian market; these are generally low volume or cost sensitive products.
June 2005 Report
- There is no evidence that (ed. Canadian motor vehicle) bumper standards provide any measure of on-road safety and therefore the standard is simply a damageability requirement that provides no safety benefit.
- In order for manufacturers to build a vehicle for both the Canadian and U.S. markets, it must be tested to both standards. This increases vehicle development cost and in some cases can and does result in limiting the choice of vehicles for Canadian consumers, particularly when projected Canadian sales volumes do not justify the additional engineering and testing resources to certify to the unique Canadian requirements.
- Canadian standards stipulate an impact to the front or rear of the vehicle at 8 km/h (5 mph) and pendulum impacts on the corner of the vehicle at 4.8 km/h (3 mph). The Canadian test allows for minimal exterior damage as long as there is no damage to or degradation of the performance of the overall vehicle safety systems or vehicle performance.
- The U.S. standard, by comparison, requires front and rear impacts at 2.5 mph (4.0 km/h) and pendulum corner impacts at 1.5 mph (2.4 km/h) - only half the speed of Canadian tests. The U.S. test permits no damage or permanent deformation of the vehicle, other than cosmetic scratches on bumper covers and sight shields.
(3) CMVSS 114 Immobilizer
May 4, 2007 Report
- The regulation contains performance requirements for which there is no test method or procedure to demonstrate compliance, contrary to government policy.
- TC without the knowledge of the Canadian industry proposed a revision to an ECE regulation (which was rejected) and TC added the new requirements to the final regulation in a manner inconsistent with regulatory process requirements.
June 2005 Report
- Most new vehicles sold in Canada are currently equipped with immobilizers, which can shut the vehicle down or prevent the vehicle from operating if the ignition is by-passed. These immobilizers meet the level of performance required by Transport Canada, and it is felt that most of those vehicles currently not equipped will either soon be so-equipped or those models will be discontinued. In spite of this situation and extensive discussions towards an MOU (ed. Memorandum of Understanding), Transport Canada has amended the Motor Vehicle Safety Regulations to require immobilizers (ed.to Transport Canada standard) on all new vehicles under 4 356 kg gross vehicle weight, starting with the 2008 model year (effective September 1, 2007).
(4) Self Certification
May 4, 2007 Report
- Transport Canada’s (TC) discussion paper on proposed revisions to the Motor Vehicle Safety Act (MSVA) would have the effect of restricting the automotive manufacturers’ ability to certify vehicles using available tools including advanced, state of the art, computerized techniques (correlated to physical tests) and engineering judgment. TC is attempting to prescribe how manufacturers certify their vehicles under the Canadian Motor Vehicle Safety Act in order to make compliance audits easier. The use of advanced methods to support certification speeds the implementation of advanced technologies and supports robust testing and compliance.
- TC, to date, has not indicated a change in its position on this issue or timeframe for its resolution.
(5) Emissions Monitoring and Reporting
May 4, 2007 Report
- The federal government is currently developing a GHG reporting system which may not be harmonized with the Ontario system.
- Environment Canada has proposed additional reporting obligations for process level emissions of Criteria Air Contaminants beyond those required of U.S. facilities.
June 2005 Report
- Current Canadian regulations require that new vehicles be certified to meet U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Tier 2 emission standards.These Tier 2 standards are the most stringent emissions standards in the world. Through a phase in process that will be completed by 2009, both cars and light trucks, including Sport Utility Vehicles (SUVs), will be grouped for the first time into a common set of emissions requirements. Meeting these emission standards represents a challenge to reducing fuel consumption, and as a result reducing carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions which are directly related to the amount of fuel consumed. Consumption reducing technologies such as direct injection compression ignition (diesel) and direct injection (gasoline) engines are challenged by tight emissions standards. However, even with the introduction of new technologies and the common process with the U.S., Canada’s ability to meet these requirements is still severely challenged because of differing fuel quality. Under the Tier 2 program, the in-use performance of emission control systems must be maintained for the useful life of the vehicle or 190,000 kilometers.
Attaining this long life requirement is highly dependant on fuel quality, which in Canada, has been compromised by the addition of manganese-based fuel additives in most consumer purchased fuel. In general, fuel suppliers have temporarily suspended the use of manganese-based additives in gasoline refining pending the outcome of the Government’s independent scientific third party review. Unfortunately this review continues to be delayed by the government and seriously risks the re-introduction of this metal-based fuel additive.
Key Recommendations:
- Continued harmonization of fuel economy targets between Canada and the US remain a high priority in order to ensure Canadians benefit from the economies of scale associated with harmonized automotive product and the resulting technology and cost benefits associated.
- Maintain consistent fuel economy standards between Canada and the US.
Ensure Canadian CAFC remains a voluntary program with targets that are fully harmonized with US CAFÉ.
- Ensure implementation of harmonized vehicle emissions standards does not lead to costly duplication of in-use vehicle emissions compliance testing in Canada.
(6) Additional list of unique Canadian requirements:
June 2005 Report
- CMVSS 101 - Requires metric cluster (speedometer/odometer) and permits/requires ISO symbols
- CMVSS 108 - Requires Daytime Running Lamps
- CMVSS 201 - Not as stringent as FMVSS 201 - CMVSS 201 was not amended to adopt the FMVSS Final Rule that was effective September 1, 1998
- CMVSS 205 - References ANSI Z26 1996, but allows testing to ANSI Z26 1990 at the manufacturer’s option.
- 208CMVSS 210.1 and 210.2 - equivalent to FMVSS 225 - minor differences
- CMVSS 214 - Does not include dynamic test requirements; however, manufacturers have signed a Memorandum of Understanding which commits us to market vehicles that meet FMVSS 214 and satisfy the OOP Guidelines developed by the Alliance Transport Canada requires Canadians to make certain modifications to certain admissable vehicles imported from the U.S.. For example, Transport Canada requires certain vehicles to have the U.S. foam bumper absorber to be replaced notwithstanding the U.S. bumper absorber meeting the FMVSS as set out below (including a comparison with the Canadian standard).
The foregoing are excerpts from:
Canadian Automotive Partnership Council
Regulatory Harmonization Working Group
Progress Report - May 4, 2007
http://capcinfo.ca/english/reports/documents/2007/RegHarmon_e.pdf
and
Vehicle Manufacturers in the North American Environment
Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America
Canadian Automotive Partnership Council
June 2005
http://capcinfo.ca/english/reports/report_jun28_05.html#impact
Transport Canada requires a Recall Letter for admissable vehicles imported from the U.S. The manufacturers or dealers charge for a Recall Letter ranges from approximately $27.50 for a GM product to $500.00 for a BMW to $5,000.00 for a Ferrari. Canadian citizens are placed in an untenable situation because of Transport Canada in that the vehicle manufacturer can elect to refuse to provide a recall letter at any price. What recourse does an owner of such a manufacturers vehicle have when a recall letter is denied by the manufacturer?
The harmonization of Canadian motor vehicle safety standards with those of the U.S. should contribute to having safer, more fuel efficient and environmentally friendly cars because people having a fixed dollar amount to spend on a vehicle will get a newer vehicle with the same dollars as harmonization would reduced motor vehicle prices in Canada.
Many Canadians are aware of the excessive premiums over U.S. prices being charged in Canada for motor vehicles. Over the past few weeks, tt seems that each nightly TV news program features Minister Cannon or people with importation problems. These problems would not exist is there was harmonization.
Does Transport Canada not recognize the terms of NAFTA?
Transport Canada has created non-tariff trade barriers that limit the ability of Canadians to buy less costly vehicles in the U.S. Until the safety standards are harmonized with the U.S. Canadians will have to deal with issues that should not be issues.
The requirement for the motor vehicle manufacturers to comply as of September 1, 2007 with an immobilizer standard unique to Canada is the main reason for the large number of 2008 U.S. models being inadmissible to Canada. If total harmonization was realized, Canadians could then purchase the vehicle which they want, whether it be in Canada or the U.S. There would be no changing admissibility list of Transport Canada. Subject to the U.S. Department of Justice dealing with the auto manufacturers with respect to their practices of denying their dealers the right to sell to Canadians, Canadians should have the right to purchase any 2008 motor vehicle in the U.S. without any modification(s) (as is presently the case with some vehicles).
Examples of motor vehicle price differences between Canada and the United States from: http://www.ataleoftwoprices.com:
2008 Toyota Camry - 25% to 35% more in Canada than U.S. depending on trim
2008 Chevrolet Impala - 16% to 27% more in Canada than U.S. depending on trim
2008 Ford Mustang - 21% to 33% more in Canada than U.S. depending on trim
2008 Ford Taurus - 34% to 38% more in Canada than U.S. depending on trim
2008 Chrysler PT Cruiser - 36% to 41% more in Canada than U.S. depending on trim
2008 Honda Civic - 15% to 27% more in Canada than U.S. depending on trim.
2008 Lexus LS - 40% to 42% more in Canada than U.S. depending on trim
2008 BMW 5 Series - 36% to 43% more in Canada than U.S. depending on trim
Consider asking your MP for complete harmonization.
December 2nd, 2007 at 12:28 am
I agree with RobW with regards to BMW and focusing on CMVSS114. I have one additional thing to add is the requirement of a “Letter of Admissibility” which also can only be obtained by BMW Canada for $350. Besides the requirement being robbery, by not clearly listing which vehicles are admissible and which are not, it creates uncertainty and fear to deter shoppers. Ultimately, you don’t know if they will issue the Letter or not and BMW Canada should not have that power.
I’m sure other companies will follow suit if they can. The whole RIV list will just be a telephone directory of all the Canadian auto companies that you have to call to see if they will issue some letter or other to allow you to bring the car in.
December 2nd, 2007 at 11:53 am
My question is: How can the vehicles that Toyota manufactures in the US and imports to Canada be legal when the same vehicle bought in the US and personaly imported isn’t?
I don’t believe thay have a different assembly line for the US and or Canadian cars.
Lastly: who was the “bright spark” in Canada that decided to change the immobilizer specs without considering the ramifications or do they work for the “big” companies and not the Canadian taxpayers?
December 2nd, 2007 at 2:23 pm
As the owner of a 10/08 Rav4 Sport, purchased Oct 22, without an immobilizer,I feel I am going to be one of the casualties of this new agreement with TC. Toyota US insists an immobilizer can only be installed at the factory,for “safety” reasons,even though third party installers insist it is not a problem.
Safety, is a word that should not arbitrarily be accepted without substantiation and documentation.
December 2nd, 2007 at 5:37 pm
Simon,
I have to agree with you regarding further delays,however we should still try and influence the outcome during the 15 day period and get TC to commit to stopping the OEM”s from playing dirty pool.My Tundra is unchanged from 07 when it was admissible.It is now inadmissible but they don’t say why.It is probably the immobilizer but there is no guarantee Toyota will make it admissible .It is still up to Toyota with nothing to force them to back up there actions with proof.I don’t think after all that has happened that we can trust the OEM’s there has to be something to keep the OEM”s in line.The compliance and penalty section is totally irrelevent it only applies to OEM’s selling in Canada.
December 3rd, 2007 at 12:49 am
Dave Mottishaw:
I sympathize with your position except when you say that “I feel I am going to be one of the casualties of this new agreement with TC”. Hopefully, the efforts of Robert and Serge and members of their team will provide a good result for you. A safety standard that is acceptable in the US where the traffic density is as high as if not higher in many parts than anywhere in Canada, should not be imposed on us by those we did not elect. Minister Cannon will have to realize that he is going to impair the electability of the Conservative Party given the number of car buyers who realize that they are paying the Transport Canada tax at auto dealers in Canada. Write your MP and the Transport Minister. Hopefully, if they know what is good for them, they will listen.
December 4th, 2007 at 8:49 am
First off, let me say that I was caught in the middle of BMW’s shenanigans, with a used 2003 525i no less!
However, the first issue is the immobilizer standard that is currently preventing most models from GM, Toyota, and Honda from being imported into Canada from the US.
As much as I’d like to see all problems with this system solved with one fell swoop, that seems naive to say the least. Expect the auto makers to have dedicated more resources to keeping the current rules in place than carswithoutborders can easily bring to bear. ie: the fight is just beginning.
Focus on the immobilizer standard to get all companies in line (take away that CMVSS114 barrier they are hiding behind), and then worry about changing the system to prevent all the other car companies from following in BMW and Mercedes’ foot steps.
I suggest creating an alternate location for readers to request and suggest further changes to the RIV / import system to address the other issues.