Dec 02
The Story behind the Immobilizer Changes
The intention of this post is to document the many meetings and events that occured from the time we were invited to participate in the “Public” Consultations concerning changes to the Immobilizer regulations!
This is also a good spot to keep track of all of the issues and action items that came up.
- 2007-12-20 We get the word that the Law has been Passed!
- 2007-12-17 RIV issues expulsion requests over the phone, Certain officials indicate that there will be an announcement late in the week. No Joy for the Holidays! Thank-you Mr. Scrooge! Start writing and calling Cannon.
- 2007-12-14 We have asked the Folks at T.C. for an update sometime today so that we can keep everyone informed and this is what we received. update-to-my-request-2007-12-14.pdf
memo-to-tc2007-12-10.pdf Providing them with an updated immobilizer report as stated Dec 6th. ( Posted Dec 10th,2007)
dec10thcysreportpluspart1.pdf dec10thcysreportpluspart2.pdf
dec10thcysreportpluspart3.pdf dec10thcysreportpluspart4.pdf
—————————————————————————————
dec4dec5consultation-sessions.pdf EOE
Minutes of Dec 5 and Dec 6 sessions. EOE
——————————————————————————–
(Updated Dec 10th, 2007 to reflect the new illustrated immobilizer report - 4 parts - see above post)
submission-to-transport-canada.pdf
Find our submission presented to Transport Canada Public Consultation regarding the proposed amendment to Regulation 114. ———————————————————————————————————————–Minutes to Dec 4th and 5th to be updated by Frday.Please find as follows the minutes and some suggested recommendations as put together by the 4 members of the team after reviewing our notes late last night. We continue to be guardedly optimistic . minutes2007-12-03f.pdf EOE ———————————————————————————— Here is the regulation everyone is talking about: In the Canada Gazette ————————————————————————————–
- Addendum to invitation initialrequest-addendum.pdf
—————————————————————————————
- Our reply and acceptance of the Invitation initialrequest.pdf
—————————————————————————————
- So How does all this work? regulations.pdf Posted 7:10 PM Dec 2
—————————————————————————————
- Invitation to participate received Nov 30th, 14:52 invitation2007-11-30.pdf Posted 7:00 PM Dec 2
—————————————————————————————
- Please find Carl’s letter to Transport Canada outling concerns and possible solutions carls-letter.pdf Posted 5:00 PM Dec 2
————————————————————————————————————
- CarswithoutBorders News release cwbnewsrelease2007-11-30.pdf
- Transport Canada’s News release
- Lawrence Cannon transcript
This is the statement Minister of Transport Lawrence Cannon made outside the House of Commons. We followed all the rules and Transport Canada changed them. Minister Cannon promised to fix the mess, but has yet to do so.
December 3rd, 2007 at 12:22 am
[QUOTE](b) unless the manufacturer has indicated in writing that the vehicle cannot be fitted with an immobilization system[/QUOTE]Well folks, we have just seen that Subaru last week was caught with its hand in the cookie jar, i.e. informing Transport Canada exactly that several more Subaru models[QUOTE]cannot be fitted with an immobilization system[/QUOTE]As somebody who had an Insurance Bureau approved immobiliser fitted to my Forester in 2004, I can tell you that’s a crock of bovine excrement that Transport Canada is saying they will keep on buying.
Car components, including immobilisers, fail or suffer damage all the time. If immobiliser replacement parts are available, they can be installed, even if the manufacturer says otherwise.
Transport Canada should only accept a manufacturer’s assertion that an immobiliser can not be installed if there are no versions of that model with an immobiliser.
Manufacturers who provide versions of a model with an immobiliser in Canada while leaving it out in a corresponding version in the US do have a way to install an immobiliser.
Nor should we forget that the aftermarket immobiliser industry has a long and successful record of not turning away business from anybody willing to pay.
December 3rd, 2007 at 1:02 am
Thank you Mr. Paquin for your most informative and well-presented letter. I thought your comments and suggestions were extremely well articulated, and clearly described the current situation with VAFUS for what it has degraded into - a one-sided mechanism for the OEM to exert power over the consumer.
I think that having you on the Cars Without Borders support team is immensely valuable. I will link to your letter through our blog in that it will help others understand the issues at stake and the necessity to take action.
With my very best regards,
Zabin Somani
http://www.ucanimport.com
December 3rd, 2007 at 9:14 pm
I have a 2008 Chev Silverado 1/2 ton truck. I do not have the new anti-theft immobilizer system. I have been told by Transport Canada that I have purchased my truck in October/07 and I will be allowed to register it. This has now been withdrawn. Transport Canada passes a new amendment but I don’t understand my position as they describe it. The Globe & Mail as shown on your website states that we have received amnesty but it appears to me that GM still has the right to say I cannot receive this immobilizing device unless it is installed at the time of manufacturing. The amendment appears to state that there will be after market products permitted, can ANYBODY tell me what I can expect.
December 4th, 2007 at 2:39 pm
Dale, If you haven’t been contacted yet, please register your case on this site.
http://www.carswithoutborders.com/get-involved/register-your-case/
December 4th, 2007 at 2:41 pm
Note as well Dale, that we did nothing wrong. Amnesty was an inappropriate word.
December 4th, 2007 at 8:26 pm
Assuming the proposed changes to the regulations get approved, is Transport Canada intending to update its website on vehicles that are admissible to Canada to indicate which ones have US electronic immobilizers and hence will be able to be imported to Canada without the installation of an aftermarket system.
If I vehicle has a mechanical or no immobilization system, I am concerned the manufacturers will still try and block them by saying it is not safe to install an aftermarket system. I am not sure what is on the vehicle that I currently have a deposit on and hence i am not sure if the regulation change will solve my problem of not. Is there anywhere to find out what immobilization systems are on a particular make and model.
December 4th, 2007 at 8:59 pm
I guess I’m a pessimist but the government stated in very plain languauge that they will continue to let the manufacturers call the shots without any accountability.They assume the manufacturers will play ball.With the OEM’s track record I don’t think they will.I am not optimistic and I really feel sorry for people who have bought vehicles without immobilizers before NOV/07
December 4th, 2007 at 10:13 pm
The only way to get results is to contact your MP and respond to the request of Robert to contact every member of the Treasury Board. Anyone know a producer at the Fifth Estate?
December 4th, 2007 at 11:13 pm
Byard, check with your dealer. The engine immobilizer on your vehicle is likely an electronic one if the key has an electronic chip in it. Otherwise all is not lost as the amendment allows for the installation of an aftermarket immobilizer. If you are worried about the clause regarding the OEMs option to declare the aftermarket installation of an immobilizer unsafe keep in mind that there are legitimate cases where this is so. I share your concern however that this clause may be abused for reasons that have little to do with safety. Carswithoutborders plans to share these concerns with Transport Canada during this consultation period.
December 11th, 2007 at 3:25 pm
hope this ends sooon…..
December 30th, 2007 at 5:34 pm
Does the current GM system, PASSlock III, meet the requirements for import into Canada?
December 30th, 2007 at 5:41 pm
Sorry about the previous post. I think it is the PASSkey III system being used now.
April 14th, 2008 at 9:47 am
Hi ;
Frustration with government and the use of private companies to do their business. Seems like we are getting more like the US every day.
My complaint with the system is the fees that are charged to importers of vehicles into Canada. As most know, the fee for getting clerance of recall letters has gone u a whopping 10 fold. What cost 26 dollars last year costs us 260 this year. It changed in November of 2007 I believe.
Why has no one complained about this monopoly. We can all get a recall letter on line, but the vehicle registration offices will not accept them. What politician ownes the company doing this service. You can be sure there is some skulduggary going on. Perhaps the RCMP should investigate these monopolistic charges.
I thought it was against the law to own a monopoly in Canada. Here the government is actually causing one by making Canadians use this one company to get clerance of recalls.
Well at least I have had my say on this matter.
Please inform others to call their MP’s and try to have this charge reduced.
Yours respectfully Ken Flecknell
August 19th, 2008 at 8:19 am
Hi Do you have any family connections with Neil, Headley or
Vesey Flecknell?
If so would love to hear from you.