Did you recently take on (or consider) a loan of 84 months or longer on a car purchase?
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/22 for details.
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/22 for details.
Options
Comments
REGULATIONS AMENDING THE MOTOR VEHICLE
SAFETY REGULATIONS (IMPORTATION OF
VEHICLES — SECTION 12)
AMENDMENT
1. Section 12 of the Motor Vehicle Safety Regulations1 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.
This proposed amendment modifies section 12, "Importation of a Vehicle Purchased in the United States," of the Motor Vehicle Safety Regulations (MVSR), to clarify the vehicle theft immobilization requirements for vehicles imported into Canada that are sold at the retail level in the United States. This proposed amendment clarifies that vehicles sold at the retail level in the United States, that are equipped at the time of manufacture with an electronic immobilization system, may be imported into Canada and that those vehicles that do not have an electronic immobilization system may be imported if the vehicle can be safely fitted with an aftermarket immobilization system.
This amendment is intended to offer more flexibility to vehicle importers while maintaining comparable safety requirements for imported vehicles as are provided by vehicles sold at the retail level in Canada. This amendment would not impose any new requirement on vehicle manufacturers or importers; rather, it facilitates consumer choice and clarifies the importation process for vehicles regarding theft immobilization systems, while maintaining safety for Canadians.
More can be found at:
http://canadagazette.gc.ca/partI/2007/20071201/html/regle14-e.html
We're ALL in the clear now !!!
Free Guide: Understand Business IP Telephony
Get your free 80 page IP Telephony Guide. Invaluab...
Ottawa to ease import of U.S. autos
The Canadian Press
November 30, 2007 at 2:46 PM EST
OTTAWA — The federal government is proposing changes to motor vehicle safety regulations, which it says will make it easier for Canadians to import U.S. vehicles equipped with electronic anti-theft systems.
More later
vehicle cannot be fitted with an immobilization system,"...
I'm no lawyer but after reading this doesn't the manufacturer just have to explictly declare an aftermarket immoblizer cannot be installed and we're back to square one?
Has anyone reached a TC or RIV official to confirm what this means? Like when can we get our Form 2? The text below looks like we're not exactly in the clear just yet - we may have to wait at least another 15 days or more before the amendment comes into force. Has anyone received any clarification from government officials re: when this amendment will come into effect, whether we need to wait for OEMs to make changes to the VAFUS, etc... ?
netdog
"No. H 227/07
For release - November 30, 2007
IMPORTATION OF U.S. VEHICLES BY CANADIANS: GOVERNMENT OF CANADA TO CLARIFY AND EASE THE PROCESS OF IMPORTING WITH AMENDMENTS TO REGULATIONS
OTTAWA — The Government of Canada is proposing an 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, which are already equipped with an electronic immobilization system or can be fitted with one.
The proposed amendment will be published in the Canada Gazette Part I on December 1, 2007. It would modify section 12 of the Motor Vehicle Safety Regulations as it pertains to importing new vehicles sold in the United States. Interested parties have 15 days to comment. The proposed regulation would take effect shortly after the consultation period. "
Serge
"Amedment says - if immobilizer is already installed (and most new cars have them), the if you are person (not corporation) who is importing, then no changes required !!!!! "
If you read the amendment carefully, it states that if your vehicle is equipped with an electronic immobilization system then no modifications are required. If your vehicle is equipped with a mechanical immobilization system or no mobilization system at all then you need to re-trofit it with one of the electronic immobilization systems that are recognized by our insurance industry.
So, how can we determine if the engine immobilizer installed in our vehicle is electronic or mechanical?
netdog
Apply the test - Are there any electrons involved with an immobilization system?
For example my car has steering lock to immobilize it. That's mechanical.
Both these group are just giving us all the run around and could careless about free trade .
But let's not rest. We should all use the 15 day period for comments to pressure for a new mechanism to determine if there are recalls. For example, I would think that it would not be too onerous to require a manufacturer to post online a list of recalls with a date stamp on each page of the report. Then, all that would be required would be for the importer to print out a copy of the online report (dated within 3 days of the date of import) and present that at the border. In order to get Form 2, a further printout of the report, dated after the date of import, would show that there was no recall between the date of the first report and the date of import. No extra work for CBS, only one more form at RIV and no work for the manufacturers, other than updating an online report. And the consumer would not be subject to being held hostage to riduculous fees or unreasonable times of response.
The important thing is to take away the ability of the manufacturers to be the gatekeeper. Now's our chance. Get out the pens and paper and start sending in comments requesting an additional provision taking away the recall letters. Be sure to use the examples of BMW, etc. to show how the manufacturers are trying to screw the consumers.
Keep up the great work!
I AM SHOCKED :mad: that you would accuse me of working for such a backwards/bureaucratic/back-stabbing establishment!
Actually, I was on the phone with Robert Lamb, and he had indicated that there was some sort of announcement today. So, right when I got off I went to the TC website and found it.
I am impressed beyond belief at the power of this lobby effort.
I am equally impressed with the short time it took Transport Minister Cannon and Transport Canada officials to craft the amendment and get it in the Gazette. Only ten days .
It seemed like forever to those of us caught in this mess but compared with most government initiatives that is virtually at the speed of light.
This is a victory for consumers. Well done everybody.
Anyways, now that there's hope that the immobilizer fiasco is being corrected, we'll keep our fingers crossed. If it doesn't work, we'll probably have to try to buy a car from some other company that isn't pushing that rule and avoid Toyota completely..
We had a great experience with a Toyota dealer in North Carolina. They are a very high-volume dealer (their showroom was hopping!), so I guess Toyota for now is turning a blind eye to the fact they've sold to a few Canadians who have stumbled across them. And what a beautiful part of the country!
netdog
Any one ???? :confuse:
Here is the online form. 50000 complaints might do something
https://rn.ftc.gov/pls/dod/wsolcq$.startup?Z_ORG_CODE=PU01
So in summary - yes the change is good, yes there is a 15 day delay here - please continue signing the petition - ,we need to arm ourselves with names of the most Canadians possible so we can ensure that the regulation get approved promptly. Also your comments on the next steps are all appreciated - there is a comments section in the site.
You are doing excellent work. I think we are saying the same thing, but I want everyone to understand that the immobilizer is just one part of a larger issue. The manufacturers seized upon it as a non-tariff barrier they could use to keep Canadians from importing US vehicles. TC and RIV were complicit in that their regulations unwittingly allowed the manufacturers to take advantage. Now, the federal government is going to shut down this option (if all goes well in 15 days), but there will still be a number of non-tariff barriers they can use - telling US dealers not to sell for export, not honouring warranties in Canada, etc. Most of these are beyond control of TC and RIV, but the compliance letter relating to vehicle recalls (or additional matters as in the case of Mercedes and now BMW) is a powerful tool the manufacturers can and will use against Canadians. By requiring Canadians to go through the manufacturer for a compliance letter of any kind, is unacceptable if the manufacturer is prepared to use it as a barrier. They can charge a ridiculous fee for it (BMW, Ferrari etc.) or hold it so long that the transaction falls apart. They can identify the dealer who may be selling the vehicle through the VIN number and threaten or impose sanctions.
The point is, TC and RIV should not be facillitating those manufacturers who are intent on using non-tariff barriers. The old program of having the importer write to a co-operative manufacturer for compliance details no longer fits the current situation.We should be pressuring the government for a fix for the problem, not a small change in regulations that may be followed by a new issue (I read that a Sienna was put on a recall list for its floormats and Toyota would not allow it to pass, even though the subject Sienna did not have the optional floormats in question). We/you will be playing a continuous game of "Whack-A-Mole" and the manufacturers hold a large advantage in size and ability to manipulate the press.
Bottom Line - Keep up the pressure, praise them for their efforts but alert the feds about the whole problem and the need for a true fix. Cheers
It will be interesting to see how much money and effort the manufacturers will put into resisting this amendment, assuming that they've likely spent thousands, if not millions, coming up with their current strategy. I imagine that having a Canadian and US production line in the same facility is a very expensive proposition. If they don't resist at all, maybe our conspiracy theories were completely incorrect and the manufacturers are all innocent.
Are US dealers near the southern border allowed to sell new vehicles to residents of Mexico? There probably isn’t the number of potential buyers as with the northern border but there must be at least a few customers.
I bet there would be cries of discrimination if a dealer told a customer: We cannot sell to you because you are Mexican.
Why are we Canadians so tolerant that we allow ourselves to be discriminated against?
The issue you bring up is very important about non-US citizens being able to purchase a US car and then eventually export. There are so many Canadians in the US who work under the NAFTA agreement, and thus should be able to buy cars and bring them back when they move back to Canada. I actually am in this situation, and have no idea what will happen when I try to bring my own US car back. It is an awful situation to be in, and completely unreasonable. I think there is far more movement of workers back and forth between Canada and the US than ever before and regulations should reflect that.
I must point out that when we moved from Canada to the USA, we purchased an Audi in Canada and made it clear to Audi that we would need to be able to import it to the USA. Audi was fantastic. They had a compliance letter the day we picked up the car, and explained to us exactly what we would have to do to make the car acceptable in the USA. If only Audi produced hybrids for North America, we'd stick with Audi!!!
I have not heard anyone complain about bringing Audis to Canada from the USA. Is this because no one is buying them or that Audi USA is as professional and customer service oriented as Audi Canada? Or are Audi prices more similar on either side of the border?
Glad the govt is actually doing something about these road-blocks!
http://www.importcarcanada.com/main/index.php?topic=201.0
However, I find your situation fishy, a compliance label may be removed for reasons other than export denial. May be salvage, handicapped, modified, theft, attempt to void certification. Do you have a carfax of your vehicle. Whatever the reason, your best first step is to try to trade back for another one with a label and in compliance. Perhaps Honda is stonewalling because the vehicle at some point did not meet the fmvss standard. Perhaps the seller has some liability in selling a vehicle that does not meet the standard. If that fails, consult a lawyer. Perhaps they can persuade the seller to take back or trade the vehicle for one with a compliance label or contact Honda. A single letter from a lawyer can often do wonders.Is it an 2004. It seems odd that they would deny you for a used vehicle like that. I suspect a shady history for that vehicle.