Cavi.ca Forums: Last 35 Posts

admin on "[private] Publication in the Canada Gazette"

admin — Fri, 04 May 2007 14:32:54 +0000

Hello Louis,

I don't know who is spreading the rumours, but these are unfounded. There will be no publication in the Gazette relating to this subject in
the month of May. Furthermore, we have not yet selected the new date for any consultation, but will inform you with reasonable advance warning, as soon as a decision is made.

Regards,

Matt

Editors Note: Interesting choice of words, that 'warning' thing. I'd happy just to receive sufficient notice!

admin on "[private] Warning - Read This First!"

admin — Thu, 03 May 2007 06:09:21 +0000

If you've read the announcement from TC, you'll have read a seemingly innocent "come on" from these slimeballs in Canada's Capital. If you haven't seen it yet, here it is:

Preliminary Comments on the Review of this Importation Rule
.
Comments regarding the proposed amendment to change the exclusion threshold from 15 to 25 years may be addressed to 15YearRule@tc.gc.ca. You may also use the electronic form to submit your comments. Please note that direct replies will not be provided; however, all comments will be reviewed and considered during the preparation of any proposed amendment, which would be published in the Canada Gazette Part I

.
Now,I realize this may sound innocent enough, but consider 2 key details:
.
1. This is a one way flow of information "Please note that direct replies will not be provided" with a teaser for you to spill your guts "All comments will be reviewed and considered during the preparation of the proposed ammendment". Yeah, right. I trust these people, don't you? NOT!
.
2. The other detail is the matter of timing. They want this information BEFORE the formal consultations take place. Gee, you don't think they might just show up at the meeting a little better prepared to handle the objections at that time as a result of these "reviewed and considered" commnents, do you?
.
Therefore, it is strongly suggested that we "review and consider" our own comments before giving these clowns anything. Please, send us an email - phone us - send a letter - anything, but let's not give these jerks a shred of information to be used against us.
.
Remember, they have every intention of ramming through this change REGARDLESS of what honest, hard-working, tax-paying, mostly law-abiding citizens have to say on this matter. Why? Because in their own minds, they know what's best for you, BUB!
.
We've got a couple of bombshells lined up to drop at the formal consulations already lined up. By cooperating with us on this, we can make sure we are as impactful as possible. I want to leave them floundering on the floor like fish out of water, wondering how they could have rated so low on the self-assessed stupidity scale.
.
With your help, we can do this! After all, we beat the Germans and we beat the Japanese. We deserve their cars, dammit.

admin on "[private] Important - Must Read - Private Meeting with CCMTA"

admin — Sun, 29 Apr 2007 08:26:51 +0000

Since Transport is re-grouping for now, Louis and I are trying to arrange meetings with individual members of the CCMTA during their conference in Edmonton. In lieu of this, we will be trying to meet both CCMTA and TC in Ottawa near the beginning of June.

Sadly, travel isn't free. And as hard as it may be to believe, not all the members who have committed to paying the few dollars we need to keep this endeavor alive have done so. This is just so incredibly unfair to those of us who have put our time, effort and money into CAVI in order to keeping our businesses alive and our futures open.

Henceforth, in fairness to those of us who have made a contribution, and as a result to comments I've received from those of us who have made a contribution, we will be severely limiting how much information we will be disclosing to non-paid members, especially discussions of strategies and information we have received from members and various government officials.

Therefore, if you know anyone who you think should be a member, please remind them that we need there support, and that there are advantages to paying the $300.

In anticipation of your next question, yes, it is still good for us to have non-paid members because it gives our organization bulk. However, we need to conver as many of our uncommitted brethren as possible to supporting our cause.

DPL

PS. If anyone has any ideas how we can build more value into our membership, please let us know. This is, after all, YOUR organization.

admin on "[private] To: Transport Canada, March 25, 2007"

admin — Mon, 09 Apr 2007 06:32:08 +0000

Good day. Your email replying to Fred Musial's request for information regarding Transport Canada's review of the current 15-year importation rule has been forwarded to me for reply.

CAVI was formed to ensure the position of key stakeholders involved in the legal importation of motor vehicles not be overlooked during the review. We wish to ensure that the information being used to promote changes to the regulation is both factual and relevant. Some of the comments you have provided do not appear to meet either of these qualifications. However, I would invite you to educate me on some of the reasons for your statements so that I can better understand the government's position.

Fist, as you point out below, the purpose for granting the exemption were to serve the legitimate needs of collectors and hobbyists. Clearly, a need was recognized for there to have been a change to the rules allowing the importation of vehicles without the manufacturer's certification of compliance in the first place. Can you provide any evidence that the need for an exemption no longer exists? In other words, what has changed in the world whereby the needs collectors and hobbyists are no longer valid?

Second, I'm not exactly clear on the significance of the fact that buses manufactured since 1971 are still required to comply with the CMVSS. Although Transport Canada seems to feel the importation of buses built in 1970 hold measurably less risk than those made in 1971, this point does not appear to be a concern of anyone I am aware of, and I think we can safely omit reference to this item in the future. However, I feel I must point out the irony of the fact that, with the obsession over safety spilling all over the place, neither passenger buses nor school buses require the use of seat-belts.

Third, you state that under the MVSA, all vehicles imported into Canada must comply with all applicable Canada Motor Vehicle Safety Standards CMVSS), and the manufacturer must certify their compliance at the time of the main assembly. You then go on to state elsewhere that the MVSA does not confer discretionary powers on the Minister to negate the legislative requirements of the MVSA. Presumably, however, the 15-year exemption was not ultra vires, and in fact was undertaken under the authority of the Minister. Is it not equally presumable that a change from the current 15-year rule to a 25-year rule, or for that matter a 5-year rule, can be undertaken by virtue of the same authority that allowed the 15-year rule in the first place? Or, has there been a change to the MVSA?

Fourth, you state that differences in vehicle safety regulations do not allow for the determination of safety equivalency. If we assume that this statement is being made in good faith, may we also assume that if evidence to the contrary can be shown, that objections to the importation of independent certification of compliance by properly accredited agencies would be dropped?

Otherwise, why could the same ministerial discretionary authority that allowed the 15-year rule in the first place not allow for the certification \of vehicles to be compliant by independent engineering firms of the type utilized by manufacturers to certify compliance?

Moving on to the reasons stated for Transport Canada's review of the
15-year review, I would appreciate further clarification of your points.

First, you state that vehicles are currently lasting longer than in
1986, and thus 15-year old vehicles are being used more on a daily basis, as opposed to vehicles being purchased by collectors for occasional use. Can you provide any numbers to support any of these claims, specifically,

a). How much longer are the vehicles built in 1986 lasting than was the case back in when the 15-year exclusion was adopted?

b). How much more are 15-year old vehicles being used on a daily basis, as opposed to collectors and hobbyists now, as opposed to back in 1986?

c). What evidence is that it was never the intend to permit vehicles imported over the age of 15 years were never intended to be driven on a daily basis?

Second, you state that Canadian regulations are the most stringent in the world. Yet, Canada is ranked 11th in Highway Traffic safety behind, well behind countries such as Japan and Germany from where desirable collector vehicles may be sourced. If Canadian and US fuel system integrity, lighting, frontal occupant protection, and child seat safety requirements are unmatched anywhere in the world, than why are our safety standings so poor? Could it be that the emphasis on the current approach to vehicle safety is misplaced compared to other areas where significantly greater improvements might be realized at lower cost?

Third, you make the shocking statement that because Transport Canada has been asked by the Canadian Council of Motor Transport Administrators CCMTA), which is comprised of provincial, territorial and federal government officials, to amend the 15-year rule for vehicles being imported into Canada and align it with the US threshold of 25 years, changes are being contemplated.

Since Transport Canada is a member of the CCMTA, isn't the CCMTA asking
Transport Canada to amend the regulations as if TC were consulting with itself? Or, can you assure the other stakeholders that TC, as the regulator and presumably CCMTA sponsor, excluded itself from discussions regarding the 15-year rule so as not to unduly influence the outcome of the CCMTA's recommendation?

Otherwise, perhaps you can expand on the importance of having perfect alignment between the Canadian and US regulations, as the need is not quite self-evident. Under current international convention, residents of other countries may operate vehicles on another countries highways.
Has there been any pressure from the US for Canada to change its rules to align itself with the USA in this matter, and if so, perhaps I am writing to the wrong authority in this matter? Given the fact that the USA has a worse traffic safety record than Canada's, shouldn't TC be leading the way in lobbying the US to change it's rules to harmonize with Canada's?

Further, you make mention of the "Study on the Effect of Vehicle Age and the Importation of Vehicles 15 Years and Older on the Number of Fatalities, Serious Injuries and Collisions in Canada" that concluded older vehicles increase the safety risk to their occupants. Based on this study, am I to understand that TC will propose to halt the importation for highway use ALL vehicles over the age of 15 years including those from the USA? Or, is there some evidence to show that vehicles over the age of 15 years imported from outside North American pose a disproportionately greater risk to public safety compared to the existing fleet? In fact, is there any evidence anywhere that indicates vehicles over the age of 15 years are exhibiting a risk greater than that contemplated at the time the 15-year rule was firs implemented.

In conclusion, what research has been undertaken to indicate that vehicles over the age of 25-year will present less risk to public safety than vehicles that are now "lasting longer" and by other measures are superior to those available prior to the time the 15-year rule was implemented? Doesn't it make more sense, if we're really committed to reducing the average age of the Canadian vehicle fleet, to follow the New Zealand example and work with importers to import newer, more fuel efficient vehicles? Otherwise, is it your position that the regulators who approved the 15-year exclusion couldn't have imagined that vehicles being made at the time would eventually be imported under the 15-year rule?

I realize these are difficult questions. However, as TC seems to be clearly convinced that the small numbers of vehicles over the age of 15-years being imported, compared to the overall size of the national fleet, presents a significantly greater risk to the public safety than other vehicles, it should be very easy to provide uncontrovertable independently verifiable evidence of such risk. Unfortunately, we haven't seen any reasonable need for the magnitude of rule change now being contemplated.

Sincerely,

Dale Leier, A/Secretary,
Canadian Association of Vehicle Importers
909 Matticks Wood Lane
Victoria, BC V8Y 3H6
T: (888) 999-1801
F: (866) 625-8743
E: dale@cavi.ca
www.cavi.ca

admin on "[private] From: Transport Canada, March 22, 2007"

admin — Mon, 09 Apr 2007 06:17:09 +0000

Good afternoon. Your e-mail to Gary Moriarty regarding Transport Canada's review of the current 15-year vehicle importation rule has been forwarded to this office for reply.

The Motor Vehicle Safety Act (MVSA) was enacted to enable the Governor in Council to make regulations to promote the safety of the traveling public. The Act's mandate is to regulate the manufacture and importation of vehicles and vehicle equipment to reduce the risk of death, injury and damage to property and the environment. Under the MVSA, all vehicles imported into Canada must comply with all applicable Canada Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (CMVSS), and the manufacturer must certify their compliance at the time of the main assembly.

Currently, the prescribed classes of vehicles under Section 4 of the Motor Vehicle Safety Regulations (MVSR) that are subject to the MVSA, do not include vehicles that were manufactured 15 years or more before the date of their importation into Canada. This exclusion effectively exempts these vehicles from having to comply with the CMVSS applicable to their particular class of vehicles. This exemption, which was enacted in 1986, was intended to allow for the limited importation of vehicles to be used by hobbyists and collectors. At the time of enactment of this exemption, the importation of these older vehicles was deemed to pose minimal risk to road users. Section 4 of the MVSR also notes that all buses built after 1971 are subject to the provisions of the CMVSS.

Vehicles less than 15 years old, which are not certified to Canada or US safety standards by the manufacturer at the time of the main vehicle
assembly, are not permitted into Canada. This is because differences in vehicle safety regulation regimes do not allow the determination of safety equivalency. In addition, the MVSA does not confer discretionary powers to the Minister nor to other federal government officials to certify the compliance of a vehicle or to negate the legislative requirements of the law.

As you note in your web mail, Transport Canada is currently reviewing the 15-year exclusion. There are several reasons motivating this review. Vehicles are currently lasting longer than in 1986, and thus 15 year old vehicles are more frequently being used on a daily basis, as opposed to vehicles being purchased by collectors for occasional use. A study completed by the Department entitled "Study on the Effect of Vehicle Age and the Importation of Vehicles 15 Years and Older on the Number of Fatalities, Serious Injuries and Collisions in Canada" also concluded that older vehicles increase the safety risk to their occupants.

More importantly, Canadian and US safety requirements are the most stringent in the world, resulting in significant safety improvements since 1986. Canadian and US fuel system integrity, lighting, frontal occupant protection, and child seat safety requirements are unmatched anywhere in the world. For example, the Canadian test speed for rear impact fuel system integrity is 80 km/h, whereas the equivalent European requirement is just over 30 km/h.

Not only are Canadian and US regulations the most stringent in the world, they are sufficiently different from those in other parts of the world that the use of Canadian certified child seats could pose the risk of fatal injury if used in a vehicle designed to other world regulations. The Canadian/US child seat anchorage test requirements require a minimum strength of 15 kN whereas the requirement in most of the rest of the world is only 8 kN. This difference is due to the fact that, here in Canada and the US, we support keeping children in child seats longer than other countries. Using a large child seat connected to the anchorages of a vehicle constructed to the 8 kN requirements could result in a failure of the anchorages during a collision, which could result in the child being ejected from the vehicle.

Transport Canada has been asked by the Canadian Council of Motor Transport Administrators (CCMTA), which is comprised of provincial, territorial and federal government officials, to amend the 15-year rule for vehicles being imported into Canada and align it with the US threshold of 25 years.

For the reasons noted, the Department is proposing to amend the exemption threshold from 15 to 25 years in order to return the regulation to its original intent, i.e. to promote the safety of the traveling public. This amendment will also align the age threshold with the US 25-year rule for vehicle importation.

Transport Canada is aware that an amendment to this rule will have an impact on certain Canadian businesses, and plans on holding a consultation session with stakeholders in the spring of 2007. This session will provide Transport Canada with the opportunity to explain the reasons for the review of the exemption requirements and will provide stakeholder associations the opportunity to present their views. Registration details will be posted at a later date on the Transport Canada website http://www.tc.gc.ca/.

In addition to the consultation session, stakeholders will have the opportunity to comment on any rule that is subsequently proposed following its publication in the Canada Gazette Part I. At that point, all interested parties will have 75 days to submit their comments. Information on how to submit comments will be published together with the proposal and will be available on the website http://www.canadagazette.gc.ca.

Thank you for your interest in the review of the 15-year importation rule. We trust that the information in this document has clarified the
Department's position on this issue.

Regulations Officer / Agent de règlements
Road Safety and Motor Vehicle Regulation Directorate / Sécurité routière et réglementation automobile
Transport Canada / Transports Canada
MotorVehicleStandardsResearch@tc.gc.ca

admin on "[private] Inequity in the Laws"

admin — Sun, 11 Mar 2007 19:31:47 +0000

One of my pet peeves revolves around the fact that so many of the laws affecting motor vehicles probably sounded like good ideas at the time. Unfortunately, times change. So do laws. However, all too often our times and laws are moving in opposite directions. Here are a couple of good examples:

1. Current laws dictating bumper design were brought in as a measure to reduce the amount of damage claims resulting from low-speed impacts. Frequently, howevever, actual damages have been found to be much higher in side-impact and higher-speed impacts as a result.

2. While we're supposed to be harmonizing our laws with other countries (such as the USA and Europe), we find that in many cases they are far more liberal. For example, we're not allowed to import kits or build cars from kits that include professionally manufactured chassis. However, this is complete legal in the USA and England.

3. Although many different vehicles all share the same highways, different standards apply. School buses don't have seatbelts, motorcycles don't have side-impact protection and trucks don't have bumpers that align with vehicles. Consequently, accidents between these different vehicle types can have tragic and expensive consequences.

Now, I'm not suggesting for a moment that all vehicles necessarily need to conform to identical standards. I'm just saying that the laws such as the CMVSS are hypocritical when they call for conformity within vehicle types while having no effect on collisions between different vehicle types.

That's just my opion. What do YOU think?

admin on "[private] Small Victories, But a Long Way to Go"

admin — Sat, 10 Mar 2007 18:11:20 +0000

I know none of us wanted to have this fight with the Governement. However, the bear has found us and, rather than being a tasty morsel we need to let them know that they have more to lose than gain by intruding into the lives of law-abiding citizens.
The good news, however, is that by making our concerns known at every level we're starting to make some differences.

According to some of the inpection facilities I've talked to here in BC, the CVSE have determined that JIS lenses are going to be sufficient in most cases. Also, it has been clearly determined that side-reflectors are sufficient where side-marker lighting from existing lights does not meet standard. Apparently there has been a change on tires too - that as long as they have load-pressure ratings listed, they meet the standard.

I have a meeting Monday with Mike Woods and Brian Kangas from CVSE, and the plan is to get a committment from them to publish a new, clearer set of guidelines for inspection facilities and importers so that we can avoid costly waste and delays.

Louis had a phone conversation with Transport Canada on Friday and, while it seems they are still intent on moving ahead with changing the 15-year rule, in now seems they are willing to allow public consultation BEFORE they send it to he Minister for signing. This is a shift from their earlier position whereby public consultation was only going to take place AFTER it went to the Minister for signing.

Right now, we're preparing a position paper for submission to the various governments across Canada. Ultimately, I think our strategy should be one of mitigation as much as possible, by pursuing the following strategy in the order of the following preferences:

1. Try to get TC to allow vehicles into Canada that do not meet the CMVSS under specific circumstances, regardless of age.

2. Try to get TC to abandon any changes to the 15-year rule at all.

3. Try to get TC to delay making any negative changes to the 15-year rule.

4. Try to get TC to minimize the effect of any changes to the 15-year rule.

Right now, it seems that #3 is what we're acheiving, and we can hope to at least accomplish #4. This may mean capping the number of units coming in each year that don't comply and/or allowing modifications to meet most, if not all, of the CMVSS standards.

That's it for this week at CAVI. For those of you who have been thoughtful enough to send us their membership fees, a great, big thank you! For the rest of you who are still sitting on the fence, I understand how hard it is to spend money on something you shouldn't have to, but I really don't see an option here.

So far, Louis and I are the founding members and Interim Executive. If anyone else would like to step up to the plate and contribute as much time, effort and money as we have, please let me know. I'd love to hand this off so that I can get back to runnning my own business.

Otherwise, your emails and phone calls are greatly appreciated. One of the nice things about being such a small group is that EVERY SINGLE PERSON makes a big difference.

Later,

Dale

admin on "[private] Fight for your right to build a business."

admin — Sat, 03 Mar 2007 22:43:32 +0000

Thank you for joining CAVI.

We are all in this fight for the right to engage in lawful business together. This situation has been thrust upon us in no due part to the fact that we have been successful at what we do: Supplying good, affordable, economical and fun-to-drive vehicles. No wonders "somebody" finds this offensive....

After all, when you are successful either stealing someone else's share of the pie or, someone else too lazy to make the effort is envious of your success. While we've yet to determine the degree to which either of these factor is predominant in our case, I do know one thing: We can win this battle if we try.

All we have to do is act smart by coordinating our efforts and, at all times, appearing reasonable! If we do that, we can create the winning conditions by which by public support grows while bureaucratic instincts for self-preservation take over.

Let the fight begin!