Topic: A roadblock at the border

[duck]

A roadblock at the border

http://www.reportonbusiness.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20071109.wrtheft09/BNStory/Business/home

 

[Snowman]

This was mandated four years ago.

[quadzilla]

In one way Mr. Patterson lucked out, because he was all set to make the deal, but stopped when he discovered that Corvettes are inadmissible.

So the guy gets an article about NOT buying a car. How desperate is the press for this stuff. 

[gord_boyd]

This ROB article by Greg Keenan is well written except
he misses corporate avoidance of free market NAFTA intentions
aspect which Montreal Gazette speaks to.  Honda is not doing it's civic duty (pun intended) by not showing compliance list of products for RIV.ca.  It is just another tool to delay fair pricing on this side of the border (and yes, fair means lower values on all cars sitting in our driveways).  Any Gov't should see this clearly and act to demand a 2008 listing response by some deadline.  It is just too loosey-goosey putting the fox in charge of the henhouse as auto manufacturers have it now.
Conspiracy theories aside, it looks very damning on the auto manufacturers.  Our Gov't should waive the Sept. 1st deadline on this
immobilizer compliance requirement for at least a year even if 4 years ago this was set in motion.  We really are over regulated with a bloated Transport Canada and this is contrary to NAFTA intentions which should be overiding direction.  I do not want my money paying for staff of Transport Canada to differentiate themselves when I see this complication.  I want and I suspect most of you want a free border.

[The Mighty Duck]

I think the point of NAFTA was to facilitate international trade, not to let Canadians buy cheaper US cars.  Every time I hear "this violates NAFTA!!!" I laugh a little bit...  NAFTA is far bigger than a few Canadians who want to save money on cars.

That said, I think more and more the government should act to force car manufactures to lower prices.  The price differential on luxury car models is just criminal.  The manufactures will lose hundreds of thousands in lease returns that they pay more than their worth?  Too bad - the free ride on the backs of Canadian consumers is over.  Years of overcharging should make up for the one-time crash of residual values...

[jcon]

I think the point of NAFTA was to facilitate international trade, not to let Canadians buy cheaper US cars.  Every time I hear "this violates NAFTA!!!" I laugh a little bit...  NAFTA is far bigger than a few Canadians who want to save money on cars.

The idea of NAFTA is to remove tariffs on goods produced in NA, not to open markets to free movement of goods.

[safristi]

I agree with Gord......as per my previous post on another thread  TransPOO Canada is just being obstructive...we are from the Gov and we are here ta *ACK YOU very much..... ...making Immoblisers a MUST have is IMMOBILISING cross BROADER shaping ......like it or NOT many of U here freaked out about the great potential profit in buying "cheap" real estate even in the STATES with our ascendent $......but balk at a CAR???


 I'm thinking of buying Chrysler from Cerebus fer my Nephews to play wif.....they couldn't do worse than the present management crew.....

[gord_boyd]

NAFTA was preceeded by the Auto Pact which recognized Canada could not have a 'Cdn. Car For Cdns.' and helped a lot of job investment in Ontario/Quebec to the point where we made more cars than Michigan.
The FTA between USA & Canada and then NAFTA when Mexico joined
was removing duties but also directionaly integrating three economies.
Even in European Union, which goes a lot farther than NAFTA, car prices vary amongst countries.
I don't think I was saying remove the border (because that means monetary union too--which might not be a bad step temporarily),
but efficiencies should lead to lowering prices for N.A. consumers as I'm sure they have.  The direction for me at least is further unifying gov't rqts. and this was intended in the initial FTA negotiations.  I say suspend Transport Canada's rqts. for a year.
I accept Demosothene's criticism that a free-for-all market not the
overlying purpose at initiation of reducing barriers, but gov'ts work for us and I'm for the next integration steps (including immigration policy & free movement of labour and N.A. common border security).  Then those civics heading south from Alliston would not be held up with Americans looking for terrorists!

[jcon]

I say suspend Transport Canada's rqts. for a year.

Not even each state has harmonized requirements for vehicles, why on earth would we drop our standards and safety measures for such a small 'issue'? Let's get a grip here.

[safristi]

drop our Stanfields.....heaven help U.S..to be exposed as poseurs....My Loonie is bigger than your..$ .......(BUTT ALL my Jobs Belong ta U......................s.eh!!!)

[sailor723]

I'm sure I'm missing something here but how did an anti theft device like an immobilizer get to be a Transport Canada "safety" requirement??

[safristi]

haven't ya heard the EXPRESSION..."Close ENUF FER GOV WERK!!!....

[jcon]

I'm sure I'm missing something here but how did an anti theft device like an immobilizer get to be a Transort Canada "safety" requirement??

In Winnipeg (I can't speak to other parts of Canada), many car thefts are by young teens looking for a joyride. Often these 'joyrides' end in accidents and injuries. Immobilizers have helped reduce insurance costs and help prevent car thefts, which lead to these accidents. I know its a stretch, but immobilizers are important.   

[safristi]

I ya could stretch yer neepis THAT FAR...you'd be in GOV TOO!!!! Vote fer tha CON man.........

[jcon]

I ya could stretch yer neepis THAT FAR...you'd be in GOV TOO!!!! Vote fer tha CON man.........

One can drean Saf, one can dream! 

I have plenty of redundancy, red tape, and redundancy around here anyways.

[gord_boyd]

JCON, if I understand you, you are saying all imports should stop
due to safety concerns about car theft represented by fully appropiate administrative law federally at Transport Canada.  (at least you are saying RIV.ca list to be the bible).

If you say there is no problem accepting these import restrictions post Sept. 1st, I respect your opinion (and then you will be clear and I will get a "grip" on what you're saying).  We agree to disagree.

I say there is a serious problem.   I say that reasons behind this administrative law while valid are poorly timed.  I'm prepared to wait a fifth year since Transport Canada raised this so that pricing in Canada can be impacted by direct imports (25K last month).  I'm looking for solutions but you may represent the majority on this board.  And then, I disagree with majority on this board.

I say that my MP should clearly understand implications of this new restriction and he should petition for a waiver for one year on this federal rqt.  But he is free to represent the majority.  He should be informed the pros & cons, your arguements included,  so I promise to include your quotes/comments printed in my envelope to Paul Steckle (and his recent replacement for Conservatives).  (I've forgotten his name!).

[safristi]

Forgotten his name....is it Able Carpetbagger Or  Garth W THEFLO..or maye IDA GONTGIVASHIT...take yer PICK..........

[jcon]

JCON, if I understand you, you are saying all imports should stop
due to safety concerns about car theft represented by fully appropiate administrative law federally at Transport Canada.  (at least you are saying RIV.ca list to be the bible).

If you say there is no problem accepting these import restrictions post Sept. 1st, I respect your opinion (and then you will be clear and I will get a "grip" on what you're saying).  We agree to disagree.

I say there is a serious problem.   I say that reasons behind this administrative law while valid are poorly timed.  I'm prepared to wait a fifth year since Transport Canada raised this so that pricing in Canada can be impacted by direct imports (25K last month).  I'm looking for solutions but you may represent the majority on this board.  And then, I disagree with majority on this board.

I say that my MP should clearly understand implications of this new restriction and he should petition for a waiver for one year on this federal rqt.  But he is free to represent the majority.  He should be informed the pros & cons, your arguements included,  so I promise to include your quotes/comments printed in my envelope to Paul Steckle (and his recent replacement for Conservatives).  (I've forgotten his name!).

I think you've misrepresented my opinion on WHAT is happening, not what SHOULD happening.

First of all the RIV list IS the bible. It dictates what can or can not be imported. If you have a problem with areas of the list then address those concerns in a different way. Throwing out a list of admissible and non-admissible vehicles solely to appease a small group of disgruntled consumers is crazy. If you think that TC should drop some of the immobilizer restrictions, then address that policy. I bet you didn't care about this list until purchasing power swung in your direction.

A moratorium on these restrictions is does not serve the public on the hole, but rather a small portion of the population. A small portion of the population whose rights are not being infringed upon.

In other words don't throw the baby out with the bath water.

I think its rather underhanded the way Honda approached this decision but I don't think its criminal.

[safristi]

are either Babies OR bathwater subject to GST!!!?...hows aboot Tequilla?

[jcon]

are either Babies OR bathwater subject to GST!!!?...hows aboot Tequilla?

Babies are tax deductible...