PDA

View Full Version : Buyers of barred cars can drive home, but no farther


Deep 3.2TL
11-21-2007, 11:44 PM
Interesting read...

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20071120.RCARS20/TPStory/Business

THE STRONG DOLLAR: CROSS-BORDER AUTO BUYING

Buyers of barred cars can drive home, but no farther
GREG KEENAN AND STEVEN CHASE

November 20, 2007

TORONTO and OTTAWA -- Michael Hill saved $15,000 on a Toyota Sienna minivan, but he can't drive it around Calgary because it's sitting on a dealer's lot 320 kilometres away in Kalispell, Mont.

Mark Perry saved $11,000 on a Toyota Tacoma pickup truck that remains parked in his brother's driveway in Spokane, Wash.

They and dozens of other Canadians have cars and trucks that are stuck in legal limbo because their vehicles don't have a theft immobilization device that meets a new Transport Canada regulation and thus were banned from entering Canada. There's no similar requirement for U.S. cars.

Now, in a bizarre twist in the saga of the high Canadian dollar and low U.S. car prices, cross-border car shoppers can drive their vehicles home, but nowhere else.

Buyers of new vehicles that lack the proper theft immobilization device may now import them, but must park these cars or trucks until Transport Canada finds a permanent solution to the regulatory snafu that prompted the ban. The reprieve may be temporary and the ban put back in place, Transport Canada spokesman Patrick Charette said yesterday, but for now Mr. Hill, Mr. Perry and others are allowed to bring their vehicles home.

"But that doesn't solve the issue," Mr. Charette cautioned. "If their vehicle is not admissible, they will not be able to plate their vehicle and it's not a guarantee that their vehicle will be allowed permanent importation and licensing in Canada."

Ottawa banned vehicles sold by several manufacturers in the United States because they didn't have theft devices that met a new standard established by Transport Canada for vehicles manufactured after Sept. 1. The ban was rescinded after the Canadian Border Services Agency raised the problem of cars being denied entry to Canada, Mr. Charette said.

There are "dozens and dozens and dozens" of Canadians affected, said Robert Lamb of Kirkland, Que., who has a 2008 Honda Civic EXL in his garage that he bought in the United States, but can't drive in Canada. Mr. Lamb is leading a group seeking to persuade Ottawa to eliminate the regulation or find some other way to permit them to drive their vehicles in Canada.

Mr. Charette said Ottawa wants to "find a fair and balanced solution," but declined to elaborate. In the meantime, importers are allowed to drive these vehicles to a parking lot, but won't be able to do much more because they remain in legal limbo.

"Right now we appreciate that there's obviously an issue with the anti-theft immobilizer, but it's the requirement and it was long planned," Mr. Charette said of the new regulation, which Ottawa announced more than two years ago would take effect on Sept. 1.

Blocking U.S. vehicles because of the theft immobilization devices "is discriminatory to Canadians as it is allowing automobile manufacturers to maintain their high pricing structure for new cars in Canada," said Mr. Hill, a Calgary financial consultant who bought a 2008 Sienna last month. "This is either collusion or unintended consequences."

Several auto makers have pointed out that they actually opposed the change in the regulation on theft immobilizers, that discussion of the change first started more than four years ago and that the timing of the new regulation accidentally coincided with the rise in the Canadian dollar.

The list of banned vehicles was broadened last week to include 2008 models manufactured after Sept. 1 and sold in the United States by Ford Motor Co., Hyundai Motor Co. and Suzuki Motor Co. Ltd. All 2008 General Motors Corp. models, several Honda Motor Co. Ltd. vehicles and about half of the Toyota Motor Corp. lineup are also affected.

"It was just a matter of timing," Suzuki Canada Inc. spokesman Mike Kurnik said yesterday. Suzuki vehicles sold in the United States either don't have the device or it doesn't meet the new Canadian regulation, he said.

In the case of its models that are inadmissible, Honda Canada Inc. is not aware of a compatible after-market kit that meets government requirements, senior vice-president Jim Miller said yesterday.

"If there is and it is installed the question becomes who is going to certify that the vehicle is compliant with the regulation as no testing has been done?" Mr. Miller said. "Who is responsible for any warranty problems as you are cutting into the wiring system of the vehicle?"

Neither Transport Canada, the Canadian Border Services Agency or the Registrar of Imported Vehicles was able to provide a definitive figure - or even a guess - at the number of Canadians who bought vehicles in the United States but were turned back at the border because their cars did not meet the new standard.

Boots R
11-22-2007, 01:42 AM
Maybe they should have called the CBSA or the RIV ahead of time.

Meegis
11-22-2007, 02:31 AM
Saw this on a diff. forum.

They are dumb for not making sure the cars were admissable or not.

Deep 3.2TL
11-22-2007, 03:05 AM
Yea, but the Sienna? That's odd because my brother in law just imported a bunch of these for his dealership, no issues... sold and registered a few too...

slemmer
11-22-2007, 07:30 AM
Typical of the left hand not knowing what the right hand is doing.

1BADRIDE
11-22-2007, 09:10 AM
Duh. Just order the immobilizer for the extra $299 when you buy the vehicle in the states. When the manufacturer refuses that, THEN it's really discrimination. This rule is for 2008+ vehicles only. Theft immobilizer is usually an OPTION in the US, but MANDATORY in Canada (as of 2008 conveniently).

I HAVE TRIED TO CONTACT THE TRANPORT CANADA HOTLINE as provided to me by GM Customer Service (Canada) and

a) they never answer
b) there is no working voicemail right up to yesterday afternoon
c) no one has the NAME of a contact person in the regulatory department

I just want the specs on the anti-theft immobilizer...

T.Dot_E30
11-22-2007, 10:33 AM
Yea, but the Sienna? That's odd because my brother in law just imported a bunch of these for his dealership, no issues... sold and registered a few too...

he probably bought used ones.

europrince
11-22-2007, 11:03 AM
Maybe they should have called the CBSA or the RIV ahead of time.



They are dumb for not making sure the cars were admissable or not.

bingo!

Deep 3.2TL
11-22-2007, 11:48 AM
he probably bought used ones.

Yes - 2007's with low mileage.

I didn't gather from the article if this is a 2008 model year only thing?

Deep

1BADRIDE
11-22-2007, 11:58 AM
^^^ it's for 2008+ model vehicles. Again, if this is REALLY the only reason, just order the option and see if they attempt to deny.

Alaric
11-22-2007, 07:57 PM
That's really unfortunate, I heard about this new law coming into place and don't really see the point of it.

carjoe
11-22-2007, 09:58 PM
What kind of safety issue would an immobilizer pose?

I read about the guy with the Civic in the Star last week or the week before. I don't get this law at all. Reminds me of DRL's except I almost understand why I need DRL's.

Boots R
11-23-2007, 01:52 AM
What kind of safety issue would an immobilizer pose?

I read about the guy with the Civic in the Star last week or the week before. I don't get this law at all. Reminds me of DRL's except I almost understand why I need DRL's.

it's been a law for Manitoba on "high risk" cars being imported for over a year. (and more recently, the 2008 models) It's to combat the "rampant" car thefts.

Although MPI (Manitoba Public Insurance) will cover the cost of the immobilizer installation, as long as it's an approved immobilizer.



Plus, owners get 40$ off insurance annualy for having an immobilizer installed.

Hell, they even give you a website to tell you if your car is high-risk or not: http://www.mpi.mb.ca/MAR/Immobilizer123.aspx

ScotcH
11-23-2007, 12:07 PM
What kind of safety issue would an immobilizer pose?

I read about the guy with the Civic in the Star last week or the week before. I don't get this law at all. Reminds me of DRL's except I almost understand why I need DRL's.


It's not a saftey issue. It was implemented at the lobbying of insurance companies that want to pay out less. Same reason why a bunch of cars don't meet Canadian "safety" bumper rules. Canadian politicians are such push overs.

DriveItSideways
11-23-2007, 12:17 PM
My uncle brought me 3 trucks (04 tacoma and two 05 tundras) to certify. They have been sold and registered into the buyers name.

Not sure what this is all about?

I have also done numerous MDX's, and chev vans, all of which only needed day time runners.

Boots R
11-23-2007, 12:20 PM
My uncle brought me 3 trucks (04 tacoma and two 05 tundras) to certify. They have been sold and registered into the buyers name.

Not sure what this is all about?

I have also done numerous MDX's, and chev vans, all of which only needed day time runners.

This only applies to 08 models being imported to Canada, and any high-risk car being imported to Manitoba.

DriveItSideways
11-23-2007, 02:21 PM
that would explain it :)

rendered
11-26-2007, 08:37 PM
Meh, they deserve the hassles. They're stupid for buying new cars anyways!
LOL

Don't people understand depreciation?

T.Dot_E30
11-26-2007, 08:39 PM
Meh, they deserve the hassles. They're stupid for buying new cars anyways!
LOL

Don't people understand depreciation?

lol didn't you have an 330ci? and now an m3? I'm sure you can relate.*wave*

Deep 3.2TL
11-26-2007, 08:58 PM
Meh, they deserve the hassles. They're stupid for buying new cars anyways!
LOL

Don't people understand depreciation?

You wouldn't have a used car to buy if people didn't buy new cars...

rendered
11-26-2007, 09:05 PM
lol didn't you have an 330ci? and now an m3? I'm sure you can relate.*wave*

I still have both. hahah, and now a Dealers license as well. My line of work is in the automotive industry. I see the shit that goes on and the crazy markup people pay on used cars. Not to mention spending close to $74,000 for a new BMW back in 2004 and watching it 3 years later depreciate $40,000! ridiculous!

but yes, deep this is true. " We wouldn't have a used car to buy if people didn't buy new cars..."

T.Dot_E30
11-26-2007, 09:22 PM
Not to mention spending close to $74,000 for a new BMW back in 2004 and watching it 3 years later depreciate $40,000! ridiculous!


So are you saying your stupid for buying a new car?

haha jus messing with ya, but if ppl are stupid for buying new cars, your guilty also. :D

rendered
11-26-2007, 09:59 PM
HAHAH yeah! I'm guilty of that mistake, but it was 2004, and they only had brand new ZHP's. nothing used since this version was released in 2004 for the coupes. so I was stuck with buying new to get what I wanted exactly. lol, DOH