MUST READ!

[Jaz]

I didn't realise that ICBC was conducting clinical trials:

[Domspun]

Is there a tax receipt?

Not yet, but I am in the process of registering a foundation for the funds! More details later this week(If I have enough time).

[RichD]

Can someone explain to me why a Quebec/SAAQ ruling is relevant to me living in BC, or anywhere else in Canada for that matter?

I'm from Quebec, as some of you know. I've lived in BC most of the past 16 years. The notion that Qc rules will somehow trickle down to other provinces is utter folly, IMO. Quebec has a unique legal system from the rest of North America, and they almost purposefully do everything different in a multitude of public sector services. There is no precedent that I can think of where BC or any other province has followed Quebec's lead, or vice-versa.

SAAQ runs a completely different operation than ICBC - they are a no-fault system with open market insurers, and ICBC is a state-run insurance program. ICBC can just increase the cost of a vehicle's insurance if they deem it more risky. Quebec doesn't work that way; they'll just ban it and never look back. That is the semi-socialist way of doing business, and it has merit in some regards (notably, cheaper car insurance.)


Not to be negative, but I can think of no more futile activity to engage in than to petition the Qc government for anything. They will do what the public servants and the politicians decide to do, which will be exclusively in the interests of the Ministry in question and the people of the Nation of Quebec as a whole (as defined by said Ministry) and the very idea of a Canadian telling them otherwise is just about a guaranty it will go the other way.

[elbosque]

Is there a tax receipt?

Sorry, Tax receipts are only available to organizations which are accepted as a registered charity by Revenue Canada. IVOAC would never qualify because its sole reason for being is to lobby government to maintain our right to import, register and operate these vehicles.

BTW, the Coastal Cruiser have three donations in via paypal for a total of $195 since David threw down the gauntlet. Hopefully by the next monthly meeting in June, the Toyota gals and boys will have raised more funds than the Mitsubishi gang.

[mararmeisto]

...but I can think of no more futile activity to engage in than to petition the Qc government for anything. They will do what the public servants and the politicians decide to do, which will be exclusively in the interests of the Ministry in question and the people of the Nation of Quebec as a whole (as defined by said Ministry) and the very idea of a Canadian telling them otherwise is just about a guaranty it will go the other way.

Then don't donate.

While provincially different from a legislative perspective, it has primarily been the automotive dealer agencies in each province that have attacked the RHDs from a 'safety' perspective. They can't come at RHDs from the angle of price (can't compete), availability (not so much an issue with the established importers/network), import loopholes ('cause there ain't any), public demand ('cause it's definitely there and we ain't buying their cars), etc, etc, etc. The one thing the dealers have gained 'some' traction with the public and the insurance agencies and some politicians is the PERCEIVED safety issue. And when I write safety issue, it is purely from the perspective of the vehicle: somehow a RHD vehicle is unsafe in a right-side-of-the-road driving country, but apparently not in a left-side-of-the-road driving country (otherwise how could they be built in the first place?).

Most people are sheep, and if one says something, shows some 'data' to support the something, most people will simply take the something as fact. This is the perpetuation of the 'unsafe' perception from province to province to province. The reality is something very different, as most of us are quite familiar with. According to ICBC's 'study' I should have had about 9.83 accidents by now what with my 3.5 years of driving a RHD.

One unique thing about the Quebec ban, from the released government paperwork, is it only applies to those vehicles between 15 and 25 years old: before 15, you couldn't import it anyways (federal restriction); and, after 25 the ban doesn't apply (QC provincial exemption). Why? Why this 10 year window? Does a 25yr RHD suddenly become safe again?

[RichD]

[originally posted mobile; editing on computer for legibility]

The ICBC study specifically does not cover the vehicles we are using. It focuses on speedsters that are low to the road, which are more dangerous to drive, RHD notwithstanding. I read this study (and others) before I bought, and came to the reasonable conclusion that the risk was minimal for my specific vehicle choice and easily mitigated through awareness and additional mirrors.

I would infer that the industry going after imports because it erodes their market share. So the real issue for us here is consumer rights: we have a right to choice. THAT is where you need to approach the problem.

Quebec has fierce customer advocacy laws, and if Quebecois want to fight for their rights there, by all means go for it. There are great tools in civil law for "fighting The Man". But this will get us NOWHERE in Canada, where we have a completely different legal framework. Legal precedent in Quebec means nothing in the rest of Canada, and vice-versa.

As for trying to affect change in Quebec from outside, this is pretty naive. You can only change Quebec from inside Quebec. "Point finale."


So if you are talking about customer rights advocacy for RHD owners here in BC, or on a national level (from the Federal angle), I'm very interested in participating/donating. But starting in Quebec is a non-starter strategy IMO, and this is my main point.

[mararmeisto]

...[s]o address the issue: consumer choice...

These agencies can't go after consumer choice because they don't have something comparable to offer us. This is why we are buying 15yr-old JDMs.

Take the Delica (both Star Wagons and Space Gears), we don't see some of the same features in minivans until at least 5 if not 10 years after they were available in the JDM: sky roofs (Toyota TownAce even has roof glass that opens AND removes); seating for more than 5 (unless you buy a Suburban); diesel engines (almost unheard of unless you buy a heavy duty pickup); 4x4 or AWD (still most minivans don't have these, unless it's Japanese); entertainment console in the rear; captains chairs in the rear; folding seats that actually fold out of the way; reasonable fuel economy for a 2-tonne vehicle (most NAMPOS minivans from the mid-90s and earlier get less than 16-17mpg); etc. I had a longer list written down somewhere, but this is what I can remember off the top of my head.

And the 'fight' is not coming from outside QC - Domspun is a local (according to his profile).

[RichD]

And the 'fight' is not coming from outside QC

You and I don't live in Quebec, therefore we are outside Quebec.

Our friends in La Belle Province need to band together and make their case in their jurisdiction. We can provide our appuis but as foreigners in Canada (legally speaking; auto insurance and consumer law is a provincial matter) we have no influence whatsoever. Its essentially the same as the delica.ca crowd advocating RHD import law changes in the US.

The Quebec RHD ban fight needs to be a Quebec movement or it will fail from the start because it is not Quebecois.

[mararmeisto]

The Quebec RHD ban fight needs to be a Quebec movement or it will fail from the start because it is not Quebecois.

So I guess you're not going to donate?

[RichD]

So I guess you're not going to donate?

I'm still deciding how much it affects me, which is the difference between a token donation and a more substantial one.

My original question, again, how does a Quebec legal decision affect us in Canada?

I'm just making the "what's in it for me?" argument. I think the answer is meaningful to other potential donors too.

[loki]

The Ban in Quebec may not trickle down to the rest of us but it makes it easier for other provinces to do the same with less pressure as they can point to Quebec and say see they did it, it must be the right thing to do (sheep). The reason to pitch in is if the Quebec ban is overturned it will help stave off bans in other provinces imo the other provinces will see what will happen if they try it and back off as it is a waste of time.

[RichD]

The Ban in Quebec may not trickle down to the rest of us but it makes it easier for other provinces to do the same with less pressure as they can point to Quebec and say see they did it, it must be the right thing to do (sheep). The reason to pitch in is if the Quebec ban is overturned it will help stave off bans in other provinces imo the other provinces will see what will happen if they try it and back off as it is a waste of time.

Okay I hear ya. I don't agree with the logic, but I hear ya.

Well, this is the part where I haven't anything positive to offer so I'm bowing out of thread.

Bonne chance.

[delicat]

Hey Rich,

I thought you brought up some good questions and although I can't take credit for these answers I hope they'll satisfy you. These answers come from a IVOAC member who's got way better knowledge than I do on the issue... Original text can be found on IVOAC site (see link in p.1)

Here's a copy:

We had one fellow who brought up some questions that went somewhat unanswered. I've copied them here to see if someone's got an answer...

Can someone explain to me why a Quebec/SAAQ ruling is relevant to me living in BC, or anywhere else in Canada for that matter?

Because it isn’t SAAQ that is the issue, it is the organization BEHIND SAAQ that you need to be concerned about. The CADA is the issue. CADA is nation wide and has deep pockets as well as important bed buddies.

...The notion that Qc rules will somehow trickle down to other provinces is utter folly, IMO. Quebec has a unique legal system from the rest of North America, and they almost purposefully do everything different in a multitude of public sector services. There is no precedent that I can think of where BC or any other province has followed Quebec's lead, or vice-versa.

IMO, you are sticking your head in the sand hoping that the problem stays in Quebec.

SAAQ runs a completely different operation than ICBC - they are a no-fault system with open market insurers, and ICBC is a state-run insurance program. ICBC can just increase the cost of a vehicle's insurance if they deem it more risky. Quebec doesn't work that way; they'll just ban it and never look back. That is the semi-socialist way of doing business, and it has merit in some regards (notably, cheaper car insurance.)

Once again, it isn’t SAAQ that is the problem, it is the organization behind them.

Not to be negative, but I can think of no more futile activity to engage in than to petition the Qc government for anything. They will do what the public servants and the politicians decide to do, which will be exclusively in the interests of the Ministry in question and the people of the Nation of Quebec as a whole (as defined by said Ministry) and the very idea of a Canadian telling them otherwise is just about a guaranty it will go the other way.

we should have lost the 15 year importation fight back in 2008 in Canada and against both TC and the CADA, we didn’t. we had a few that stood up for the many of apathetic individuals that couldn’t invest the time, money or energy. Our government and their agencies EXPECT this reaction from the masses and force unjust rules, regulations and laws down our throats. If we have a negative helpless attitude, you are right, they win.

The ICBC study focuses on speedsters that are low to the road, which are more dangerous to drive, RHD notwithstanding. I read this study (and others) before I bought, and came to the reasonable conclusion that the risk was minimal for my specific vehicle choice and easily mitigated through awareness and additional mirrors.

The ICBC study was implemented after a request from CCMTA and the CADA to put a stop to the importation of 15 year old vehicles (RHD or LHD). It is a bogus report based on fraudulent and erroneous stastical information. It had nothing to do with “speedsters that are low to the road”. Those that want to go fast will whether it is in a Vette, Stang, skyline or a neon. Anyone that was a male between the ages of 15 and 30 will know this. As you have stated, driver common sense or lack there of is the issues, NOT the vehicle in which the individual is sitting.

I would infer that the industry going after imports because it erodes their market share. So the real issue for us here is consumer rights: we have a right to choice. THAT is where you need to approach the problem.

We already are and THAT is the main issue we need to address.

Quebec has fierce customer advocacy laws, and if Quebecois want to fight for their rights there, by all means go for it. There are great tools in civil law for "fighting The Man". But this will get us NOWHERE in Canada, where we have a completely different legal framework. Legal precedent in Quebec means nothing in the rest of Canada, and vice-versa.

Actually, if we all do nothing and leave it to the Quebec’rs to fight by themselves it will get us NOWHERE.

As for trying to affect change in Quebec from outside, this is pretty naive. You can only change Quebec from inside Quebec. "Point finale."

Hence the reason we are participating and supporting the FIGHT FROM WITHIN Quebec’s borders. Some might roll onto their back and stick their legs in the air cause once the “fleet renewal” program is finalized ALL vehicles 10 years old and older will be off the road and you will be forced to drive what CADA TELLS you to drive. Did anyone really think this is about RHD and safety issues? This is about FREEDOM of choice. CCMTA has a mandate to institute lift laws, age laws, etc. all coming from within their organization which, since I doubt many know much about the CCMTA, is made up of automotive insurance companies, CADA, SAAQ, ICBC, AMVIC, OMVIC, BCMVA, transport Canada, and I could go on.

So if you are talking about customer rights advocacy for RHD owners here in BC, or on a national level (from the Federal angle), I'm very interested in participating/donating. But starting in Quebec is a non-starter strategy IMO, and this is my main point

we want as many individuals to stand up and make a statement to the governments, we accept contributions of time, money, energy towards the fight for RHD AND LHD imports and the fight (this time around) is starting in Quebec. If the fight started like it did last time in BC we would be willing to stand beside you… like we did FOR you last time… and we won..

So Rich...
Does it help?

Cheers,
David

[delicat]

Now standing at $865.

The Toyota club I challenged is slowly catching up... nice way to get more people involved!

Cheers,
David

ps. Mararmeisto, did you get my PM?

[RichD]

Thanks for the feedback David. PM'd you my thoughts on local stuff.

Edit: also making a small donation to start. You've heightened my interest in the issue. Cheers.