Dec 18
Canadian Consumers Beware!
An Open letter to the Canadian Consumer! We wonder how many Newspapers will jeopardize their Car advertizing $$$$ and print this! canadianconsumersbeware.pdf
- Pages:
- En Français
- Links
- Categories:
- Archives:
- Meta:
Dec 18
An Open letter to the Canadian Consumer! We wonder how many Newspapers will jeopardize their Car advertizing $$$$ and print this! canadianconsumersbeware.pdf
December 18th, 2007 at 6:09 am
I applaud what you are doing. You may wish to add the word “more” after “5000″. The was the most obvious required edit although I’m sure it was plain what you meant otherwise.
December 18th, 2007 at 7:39 am
I just sent it also personally to our local paper who has not even acknowledged any of my e-mails so far.
December 18th, 2007 at 9:42 am
Nice job. Thanks a lot.
I will printout it and post in my company board. Hope everyone doing so.
December 18th, 2007 at 11:55 am
Is your intent to get this published as an OpEd article? I think a better option would be to buy a
full-page ad in the G&M. I know that costs a lot of money, but I’m more than willing to write you a
cheque to help pay the cost. I’m sure everyone who signed the petition would be more than willing
to make a donation to see that letter published on a grand scale.
December 18th, 2007 at 11:59 am
Honorable Prime Minister, Ministers, and Member of Parliament,
Re: Importation of Vehicles from the US
I noted the December 1, 2007 publication of the Canada Gazette advised Transport Canada was reviewing the issue of vehicle immobilizers and the CMVSS 114 regulation that came into effect on September 1, 2007, with the view to relaxing the regulation and allowing importation of vehicles manufactured after September 1, 2007, provided they were equipped with an electronic immobilizer system at the time of manufacture or they could be equipped with an aftermarket immobilizer system that was compliant with CMVSS 114. As I understand it, the review process was supposed to be consultative and to last 15 days but little or no information has been provided by Transport Canada as to the consultation process. In this regard I have the following concerns:
1. Who were the individuals and organizations allowed to make submissions during the review process?
2. Were there minutes taken of the review and consultations and if so, are the minutes available to the public?
3. What evidence was provided by either Transport Canada or the manufacturers that any vehicle manufactured after September 1, 2007 either complied with CMVSS 114 or did not comply with the regulation?
4. What evidence has been collected by Transport Canada, the Insurance Bureau of Canada, or the equivalent organizations in the US that vehicle immobilizers installed at the time of manufacture have had any effect on decreasing vehicle theft?
Naturally, my concern about this review process increases as each day goes by as there has been no information forthcoming from Transport Canada as to whether or not the regulation on vehicle immobilizers will be relaxed. At this time, I believe there are between 1000 and 3000 individuals who have purchased vehicles manufactured after September 1, 2007 in the United States and who have not been able to obtain the required paperwork for licensing or vehicle for operation in Canada as the vehicles have been deemed inadmissible by Transport Canada. I believe as a conservative estimate these individuals will be out of pocket between $5,000 and $10,000 if they are required to export their now used vehicles back into the United States. This makes the Mulroney/Schreiber debacle pale by comparison, as these taxpayers and constituents could be out collectively to the tune of $5 million by the most conservative estimate and up to $30 million if 3000 of these individuals lost $10,000 each. Considered another way, if one vehicle in 100 of the vehicles in question was stolen, the insurable loss could be $40,000 for each vehicle or $1.2 million if 30 vehicles were stolen. I expect the Honorable L. Cannon will have more accurate statistics than I am able to provide; nonetheless I do not believe the existing regulation, CMVSS 114, will have the desired effect. Of course, my main reasons for believing this are as follows:
1. Transport Canada does not have a test in place to determine compliance with CMVSS 114 and I believe there is likely no test that can be developed to determine if all vehicles supposedly compliant with CMVSS 114 are actually compliant. One has only to consider the logistics of developing a standardized test given the large number of types of vehicles being sold in Canada.
2. Any test Transport Canada may develop could not factor in the relative skill and experience of persons involved in stealing vehicles. Clearly, a locksmith would have an easier time breaking into a vehicle than would a quadriplegic. So then would an installer of factory vehicle immobilizer systems have an easier time stealing a vehicle providing he or she was trying to steal the same type of vehicle on which he or she normally works.
In summary, I think reasonable Canadians could postulate the vehicle immobilizer system regulation has been used by some vehicle manufacturers to stop the importation of their vehicles manufactured after September 1, 2007, from the US. I believe these manufacturers have relied on the fact Transport Canada has not developed a standardized test for compliance with CMVSS 114 and has allowed all manufacturers to “self certify”. This has allowed manufacturers to stop the importation of vehicles into Canada without the rigor of independent scientific testing. This is abundantly clear to anyone who has taken the time to consider the facts. What is not clear is the reason or reasons why the present Government of Canada continues to support the previous Government’s efforts to prevent harmonization in pricing for identical products sold on either side of the border. I sincerely doubt any vehicle manufacturer would make any submission regarding vehicle immobilizers to Transport Canada if the price for their vehicles was equivalent on either side of the border. Of course, Canadians would have little reason to import vehicles from the US if this were the case. Clearly, the punitive steps most manufacturers have taken to prevent importation of their vehicles that include advising US dealers to refuse to sell new vehicles to Canadians, charging usurious fees to Canadians for the documents Transport Canada has mandated are required, refusing to provide the required documents, voiding warranty on new vehicles imported into Canada, and charging outrageous prices to complete minor alterations to meet Transport Canada’s standards has everything to do with penalizing Canadians to maximize their profits and nothing to do with vehicle safety and harmonizing trade.
Your thoughts on these matters would be appreciated.
Tim Hall
December 18th, 2007 at 12:32 pm
>Is your intent to get this published as an OpEd article? I think a better option would be to buy a full-page ad in the G&M. I know that costs a lot of money, but I’m more than willing to write you a cheque to help pay the cost. I’m sure everyone who signed the petition would be more than willing to make a donation to see that letter published on a grand scale.
I am willing to!
December 18th, 2007 at 12:34 pm
Great Letter Tim!
December 18th, 2007 at 12:38 pm
Cudos to Rob and Tim for some excellent work. However after reading these letters, my anger has grown even more. What a bunch of ungrateful bastards these automobile manufacturers are. Here we are, wanting to buy thier products, going to great efforts to get them but they continue to screw us and treat customers like dirt. My sinister side is trying to come up with some way we can return the favour, but my other side is reminding me that’s not what this season is about. Grrrrrrr!!! How’s everyone’s Christmas going so far???
December 18th, 2007 at 12:44 pm
Robert and Tim,
Great letters by both of you. I wrote a letter similar to Tim’s to my local MP, P.M. Harper and Lawrence Cannon last night.
Lets keep up the pressure on these individuals!
December 18th, 2007 at 1:15 pm
We can all help by printing off a 100 copies of this letter and posting it through mailboxes in our neighbourhoods. This is the very least we can do — for those with the time and budget — 1,000 copies, maybe even 10,000 copies.
December 18th, 2007 at 1:57 pm
Dear Ms. Ambrose,
I would greatly appreciate it if your office could look into the status of the Government of Canada’s proposed amendment to the Motor Vehicle Safety Regulations (MVSR) to clarify and make it easier for Canadians to import vehicles from the United States built as of September 1, 2007. http://www.tc.gc.ca/mediaroom/releases/nat/2007/07-h227e.htm
It is my understanding that the new regulation was to come into affect December 16, 2007 so that thousands of affected Canadians, like myself, would be able to import their already-purchased vehicles prior to Christmas Holidays.
In my case, I have a new 2008 Chevrolet Truck waiting for me in Missoula, Montana. I saved nearly $20,000 by purchasing it in the U.S., but have the same issue as thousands of other Canadian consumers: Between the time I purchased my new truck and the time that I picked it up and tried to take it across the border, Transport Canada changed it’s regulations and made my vehicle inadmissible.
The regulation is laughable for the following reasons:
1) Chevrolet’s 2007 and 2008 Model 2500HD trucks are identical, yet my 2008 is inadmissible.
2) Chevrolet’s US and Canadian models are identical, yet the US model is inadmissible.
3) The regulation is clearly being exploited by the auto manufacturers to further prevent Canadian consumers from purchasing in the US and enjoying the benefits of free trade.
4) Even if the US versions of the immobilizers were different from the Canadian versions (by all accounts, they are not), it is not worth $5,000 to $35,000 per vehicle to the Canadian consumer to have the “version” of the immobilizer that is certified by the manufacturer to meet Transport Canada’s standards. It would appear that the policy makers at Transport Canada require an elementary lesson in economics: Certification of the immobilizer device is not worth thousands of dollars the Canadian consumer.
For more information about the thousands of Canadians in this situation, please visit: http://www.carswithoutborders.com/.
Your office’s timely inquiry into the state of the regulation change would be greatly appreciated so that my family and I can plan for and enjoy the holiday season. Best wishes to you and your staff for Christmas and the New Year.
Lee Ready, P.Eng.,MBA,M.Eng.
December 18th, 2007 at 2:30 pm
If this law does not pass, at election time we should focus all our efforts to defeat those members of parliament who ruled against us in this matter. All efforts to defeat this conservative government should go into high gear. Will the car MFGS. give these former MPS a job as their reward for not passing this law???????? Time will tell. Roger Delorme
December 18th, 2007 at 2:30 pm
Great Letter guys. Keep up the good work. We will not give up.
I have called my MP and as well sent a letter to local TV anchor.
I believe if we stick together we can make a difference.
December 18th, 2007 at 2:46 pm
Spoke with Pierre Tremblay at Transport Canada today. He said its best to leave the vehicle in the U.S. in case I have to sell it. I wonder if this comment is any indication of the coming announcement. I am going Thursday to get my post sept 1st manufactured Cadillac Escalade.
December 18th, 2007 at 2:55 pm
Maybe we should all email the presidents of Honda, GM etc advising
them that if they continue to gouge Canadians we will not buy any
of their products because of their fraudulent business ethics. We
can spred the word to many people very quickly. They need to know
that the choice for us is not buying in the US or Canada but
to buy from a manufacturer that has higher moral values. If
their business ethics are so low I wouldn’t even buy in
Canada from anyway.
December 18th, 2007 at 3:30 pm
I just called 613.990.2309 and talked to someone there who just gave me the run around. When I pinned him down to a specific answer to which he did not have a scripted answer, he said he could not reply to it. I then asked for someone to talk to who could reply to my answers. He stated he would have someone call me back. Call was made approximetly at 3:10 this afternoon. I am waiting for a return call.
December 18th, 2007 at 4:13 pm
Just got a call back frfom Transport Canada senior personel. My error in not writing his name down. I got him to admit that the immobilizer in my US truck is the same one used in Canadian trucks, but GM still maintains they do not meet the Canadian regulations. Does that sound like a trade barrier by GM. He stated the process in admission is still front an center at this time.
Good news just came up. The fellow at transport Canad a [Robert] just called me back and told me ananouncement will be delived tomorow at around 10AM on our cars and trucks. I asked him if it was good news and he stated on my truck it will be a nice Christmas gift That is all I know. Tune in to web site http://www.tg.gc.ca at ten AM December 19, 2007. Merry Christmas to all. Roger Delorme
December 18th, 2007 at 5:06 pm
Well, whether the news is good or bad, it hopefully will clarify the issue. No matter how it goes, I want to thank everyone at CWB for facilitating this crusade. My feeling is, if there is any sort of victory it will be small and short lived. The Mandarins know if the masses are placated the problem will disappear and most likely not reappear due to the well known Canadian Apathy.
December 18th, 2007 at 5:11 pm
Contacted RIV at 1655 after many tries taday and was told the following. The lady asked for my case number and I said that I didn’t have one as I was calling for a friend.
I asked her if there was any progress regarding the Immobilizer situation and she said she didn’t know anything about it.
I then said there were literally thousands of people awaiting an answer and surely she must have heard about it.
She then said that they expected to hear from them by Friday.
I asked who them was and she said Transport Canada.
I said that would be too late as they would then be on holiday. She said no, they will get an answer by then.
I asked her name and she said Marie and spelled it out..
Note: Marie was polite and spoke with a British accent.
December 18th, 2007 at 6:48 pm
I also have contacted my MP almost every other day,patiently waiting for a response,I sure would hate to see Toyota Canada have to reduce the price on the trucks in which they import and sell to us at Scrooge prices.Merry Christmas Toyota Canada
December 19th, 2007 at 12:17 am
Great letter Tim…
Your point…
“What evidence has been collected by Transport Canada, the Insurance Bureau of Canada, or the equivalent organizations in the US that vehicle immobilizers installed at the time of manufacture have had any effect on decreasing vehicle theft?” ……..is a result of the failure of the politically correct politicians who pander to the community of the 50 or 100 punks who steal cars in Winnipeg but which the politicians would not punish for their crime…instead the politicians punish every car buyer…by requiring an immobilizer.
Some implications of installing an aftermarket immobilizer…
1. Higher repair costs because more damage is done to the stolen vehicle by the thief in disabiling the immobilizer. The punks aren’t stupid and can and will disable the immobilizer. They are like computer hackers…immobilizers are just a challenge that will be overcome.
2. Operational problems with the vehicle as a result of the immobilizer having been installed…e.g. starting problems, fires, engine stops operating for unknown cause…a safety problem in itself given that power steering and brakes are affected.