After a long winded intro only a lawyer could write, the following....
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.
SPONSORED LINKS 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.
Great day for all of you. Your continuous pressure on MP's and thru media On TC had made a dent. I think All those people who are in limbo from last few months with sleepless nights finally will be able to sleep with a BIG smile. NAFTA is still alive. Now its the time to put pressure on manufacturer's to get their facts right. Otherwise people like us now will put full attention to Manufacturere's for ripping candians from last 4 years? We must not let them go with this!
So if this thing passes in 15 days, what is stopping me from bring in that 2008 Honda Odyssey? I still have to find a dealer or broker. Any suggestions?
"(b) unless the manufacturer has indicated in writing that the 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. "
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 !!!!!
I am so happy - this will fix the problem - you thanks to the 1000's who have written to the MP, Minister's office - on our website www.carswithoutborders.com and all the volunteers - we need to read the fine print - but is looks like the full and real victory - Thank you Mr. Cannon - a little late but Thank you. Now how does a MESS like this occur ??? 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?
One last thank you - Jan R. from the Mtl Gazette - you started the noise with Bob Lamb and Clement. CBC Radio Canada - you are terrific - now I know why I watch the National for the last several years - you report the real story - thanks CBC.
I just went to the TC website and read what they wrote.....I then called RIV and they still tell me that the vehicle I want to import is inadmissible. I want to bring in a 2008 Honda CRV manufactured after sept 1,2007 and they said no. I then went back to read the TC website and it is still foggy and is not actually saying you can do as your please.........it is saying you still have to contact the RIV for the admissibility and inadmissibility........... Both these group are just giving us all the run around and could careless about free trade .
Yes, this is great news. And I hope some of the people who have been taking shots at the government will now give credit where credit is due. This problem arose on November 1 and it is likely that it will be resolved by mid-December. That is exceptionally fast action for government.
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.
edi_wan: : Do you work for TC because you got that release out before it was even posted.
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 hope there isn't anything that can happen during the 15 day comment period that could derail this amendment. Also does anybody know how long after the 15 day period it takes before the amendment becomes law?.
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.
I am very happy that I will be able to bring my truck in,HOWEVER, what about the poor guy who brings in a vehicle with no immobilizer and the manufacturer says it can't safely be added.We are not finished yet, the companies still have veto rights over vehicles with no immobilizers.This is not acceptable.
Immobilizers remain part of government policy. If a new vehicle cannot be fitted with one, it would never be sold in Canada, so why should it be allowed as an import? That should be a rarity anyway. There are various vehicles excluded for other reasons, including bumpers that are not up to standard. I didn't see any clamour to allow the import of Scions. So why battle should for vehicles to be imported that cannot be fitted with immobilizers at all - unless there are counterexamples. :confuse:
Hey dude.... I feel for ya. MB is the only stupid dealer who has all these stupid rules and I'm willing to bet that after you've paid your $750, you won't be able to register your car anyways. We've fought for one year - and they're bastards. keep in mind that the mod work can only be done at an authorised Mercedes Benz Dealership - so you can pay them the extra money it costs to the "luxury" dealer. whatever you would you've saved essentially goes back into their pocket one way or another. so are you really getting a deal on your car after duty, taxes, mods and not to mention the number of times you'll have headaches from talking in circles and getting no information. Had the same problem with my CLK 430 and now in the process of selling it back to someone in the states. I thought we lived in a free country - but it's communism at its finest!! so think about what it's worth to you (btw the cadillac escalde is just as nice... and you won't need to modify it) I will never touch or buy a mercedes benz again those greedy bastards can keep their cars and do whatever they want to shove it where it hurts. Good luck! :mad: :sick:
If a vehicle truly can't safely have an immobilizer installed that's one thing,but to let the manufacturer make this decision is ridiculous, that's how this mess happened in the first place.Where do you think all the inadmissible vehicles came from even though many of them have identical part numbers and identical installation.
Just in case anyone is looking (and hopefully none of us will have to look for pre-Sept1sts soon), but my partner and I went to a local dealer in San Diego today looking for any pre-Sept1st Priuses. We actually live here in san Diego but wanted to buy a pre-Sept1st because we plan to move to Canada a year from now and would like to take the car with us. It wasn't easy for the dealers to just 'look up' manufacturer's dates on teh computer - they only had the invoice dates there - so he took an invoice date on a prius (early November) and physically went to the car on the lot to see how far back he'd have to go - it was a 2007/10 manufacturer date - so no go. He checked inventory in most of SoCal (or so we were told as we were watiing) and nothing pre-Sept1st for the Prius'. There was one that came up (June 2007) but it turned out to be that dealer's floor show model...
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..
Would this amendment mean that after 15 days or so, all 2007 and 2008 Acuras/Hondas built after Sept 1, 2007 will be changed from inadmissible to admissible on the TC/RIV list? Or it is more than just the immobilizer issue. Anyone knows?
Just to get off of immobilizers for a moment (and by the way, if you add one to the vehicle, would that void the warranty?): we were looking at a Toyota Sienna LE in the US but it did not have automatic daytime running lights. My husband was under the impression that it would be a quick mechanical fix, but the service dept. said no. We ended up getting an XLE at an excellent price, so this is just curiosity at this point. Has anyone had the 2008 Sienna LE modified so that there are automatic daytime running lights? This is something you should check if you're buying in the US. 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!
Sounds like your dealer pulled the whool over your eye re: the DRLs (got you to buy the XLE right). DRLs are optional on the Sienna regardless of trim package (part of fog lights package). You can have them installed at Canadian Tire during your compliance inspection for $170 or even cheaper elsewhere. It is one of the quickest and easiest mods. Anyways, don't kick yourself over it, the XLE is much nicer anyways. I think you'd agree.
I am looking into purchasing a 2001 SL600 low milage etc. I have checked with Mercedes and the car is admissible into Canada, What is worrying me is the so called work that MB might have to do to this vehicle. I cannot phantom taking an instrument cluster apart on a mint car other than for repair. This car has every safety feature one can think of. Does any one know what and why MB modifications this car will need? I am buying the car from a collector in Boston.
Here is a Federal Trade commission compaint online form. If we all bombard them with examples of OEMs in the US that refuse to sell to Canadians maybe we can get the ball rolling on anticompetitive trade practices. Remember the dealers want to sell to us but the OEMs put pressure on them not to. I contacted a US lawyer regarding the restriction for sales to Canadians and they would not beleive me.
Here is the online form. 50000 complaints might do something
I have a 2008 GMC Sierra built in November. Am I going to be allowed to bring it over the border before the new draft legislation becomes law? I believe that last week they were allowing vehicles across the border and stamping them "Inadmissable". Does anyone know if this is still the case?
A bit of clarification - the regulation that has been posted by TC is in Category 1 subject to a consultation period of 15 days - this is a shorter period than nomal - Car Without Borders has been invited to present our response at those hearings. We are assessing the situation and will be doing everything to get this in, asap to help of those stuck now in the process. So we will be careful not to cause any undue delay. After the 15 days is up, the regulation can become in force and only then will the RIV change their lists and go with the new proposed rules that are in the Transport Canada release.
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.
I agree great news - however we have to be careful not to fall into the trap of requesting more and more changes to the point that we will get more delays to Canadians - I guess I don't want to sound like a politician but "we need to have a balanced response to TC regulations" the car companies would love it if the consumers were causing more delays. That's why we will continue the fight for all the very valid reasons - but let's think this one through - we are inviting comments on the www.carswithoutborders.com site. And we plan on presenting our petition to TC as representing Canadians who want fair pricing and the ability to use our purchasing power for cars like we can do with other products. Positive Continuous Pressure.
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
I really don't think that having the manufacturers dictate which vehicles can't have any immobilizer installed will be a problem. For Toyota, for example, to say that non-equipped Siennas are not capable of having an aftermarket system installed would be seen as a totally obvious and fraudulent attempt at manipulating the process. Despite the fact that most people already feel what they've done is obvious and fraudulent, it appears that they simply capitalized on what they felt was a manageable difference between the two standards.
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 toyota dealers in the US are claiming that they are not permitted to export at all....does not matter whether its canada or mexico, not exports permitted...
Of course, the dealer does not export. It is the purchaser that exports. So, a rule is fine for the dealer not to export, the issue is whether a non US citizen can lawfully purchase a vehicle and then undertake export for a vehicle which they own.
03terminater could I get the name of that lawyer? Honda is refusing to issue me a Letter of Compliance, our Compliance Label is missing from our Pilot, which sits at the sweetgrass border. Want to know if they can legally refuse me that letter, as I am the legal owner of the Pilot.
03 terminator: 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?
We just bought a 2008 Prius in MA and we're in the same situation as you (we'll be moving back to Canada soon). Our Prius was built Oct. 07. I really don't think there are any that are being sold here that were built earlier than that. As far as I could tell, the 2008 Prius is identical to the one sold in Canada. In Canada, there are so few Priuses on the road, that it is hard to imagine that Toyota would make a whole special part of an assembly line for the 10 Priuses they probably sell there in one month. In your case, just hope that this TC change goes through. I don't think we will have to make any physical modifications to the car at all. It has Daytime Running Lights, too. In the cold, we are still getting mileage that is above the manufacturer's estimate of 48 mpg. The first 5 min are usually 25 mpg, but after that, it is usually about 60 mpg! It is untrue that the mileage totally tanks in the cold!
ronny1 is right. If you don't live in Massachusetts, buying a car here for import would be rough. It takes 6-10 MONTHS to receive the Certificate of Title. So unless you have somewhere to park the car, it will be a long time until you can bring it back to Canada! New Hampshire or Vermont might be better choices.
I would consider refusing recall letters,removing compliance labelsand banning dealers from selling to Canadians to be obviously fraudulent.Why would you expect the manufacturers to change now?Maybe you should remove your rose coloured glasses.
We're hoping to go down Monday to bring back vehicle. We have completed paperwork, etc, waited 72 hours, etc. and I want to know, when you drive across the border, do you stop and meet with officials on the American side FIRST or do you just drive across and do your check-in, pay dues, etc, all on the Canadian side?
The lawyer that I consulted was in Washington State and it was the freebie initial talk. She could not believe that dealers would refuse sell to Canadians. I ended up purchasing a very low mile used car, so I never pursued further with the lawyer. Although I am considering getting another vehicle when the RIV list gets straightened out. I would suggest that you contact a US lawyer close to you, if you want to pursue that angle, the initial consult is usually fee.
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.
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.