Dec 11
Toyota buts the Boots to Canadians!
Take a look at the following two letters from Toyota.
- The first is an extensive and clear directive to dealers in order to protect “regional” markets. Next they will tell you that since you live in Kingston you can’t buy a car from a dealer in Toronto! toyota-another-brick-in-the-wall-1.pdf
- The second letter demonstrates just how much they want your business. ( put up the wall and then put the boots to Canadian customers! - tell me if this was happening in the U.S. what do you think would happen!)toyota-puts-the-boots-to-another-canadian.pdf
December 11th, 2007 at 9:10 am
While it may be the policy of Toyota to discourage the importation of their cars into Canada by the means described, nevertheless Toyota has declared in the RIV website that all their models manufactured after Sept 1, 2007 are admissible into Canada. Honda, on the other hand has declared their models manufactured after Sept 1, 2007 inadmissible. Toyota, therefore, in practice, seems much more fair to the Canadian consumer.
December 11th, 2007 at 9:59 am
Toyota is playing the “optics” game, as it is called in government. It looks like it is one way but really the truth of the matter is something else. Toyota may be admissable on the RIV list whereas Honda is not. Toyota USA heavily controls not only exports to Canada but also sales out of the dealers regions. A dealer in Minneapolis was chastised by Toyota for selling vehicles into California. The Minneapolis vehicles met all California standards. So when it comes to Canada, Toyota audits their dealers very carefully as that is a category that is a definite “no,no” for Toyota USA dealers. So you will understand why there is considerable effort required to source US Toyota products.
They are doing what they should be, maximizing shareholder value.
December 11th, 2007 at 10:59 am
Toyota has declared in the RIV website that all their models manufactured after Sept 1, 2007 are admissible into Canada????
how can i found this????
December 11th, 2007 at 11:17 am
I for one will not buy a Toyota vehicle as of today.I purchased a new 2008 Toyota Tacoma in the US.I save 12000 dollars.All Toyota trucks in Canada are built in the US.They changed the RIV list after I put money down.I will purchase a new Ford now.Thanks Toyota
December 11th, 2007 at 11:43 am
as of the RIV list toaday, the 2008 Toyota Prius (amongst others) is not admissible.
and any RIV list
that puts the onus on the importer to get a manufacturer’s letter of compliance is open for abuse
by the manufacturer. and facts show that the manufacturers can not be trusted to operate in good
faith with consumers.
michael buffy, maybe I’m misunderstanding your comment but I do not believe that corporations
breaking laws and abusing their positions of power is in their shareholders’ interests.
Europe recently cracked down on manufacturers acting in such bad faith and it cost their
corporations many millions of dollars in lawsuits.
December 11th, 2007 at 12:16 pm
What’s crazy about Toyota’s letter to the poor fellow in Calgary is that they say it is his responsibility to determine whether or not local requirements are met. Hold on a moment — I thought it was Toyota Canada’s responsibility to inform the RIV (honestly) regarding all matters of conformity. Are Toyota saying that we indeed can state our own case(s) to the RIV? Do they know something that we don’t?
Also, they state that the immobilizer may not meet Canadian specifications. Well, which is it — according to the RIV lists the Sienna is inadmissible. I assume it has been deemed inadmissible because Toyota Canada said (honestly) that it did not comply. But the letter clearly states that it may comply. Hmmm. Surely the right hand knows what the left hand is doing.
I pray to God that the proposed amendment makes it through. In all my years of feeling indignant about things that are clearly wrong, this situation with the manufacturers seemingly controlling, without audit, the RIV lists is one that has annoyed me more than most.
December 11th, 2007 at 1:42 pm
The list changed on Friday Dec 7/07 to admit Toyota SUV’s and most of the cars. My 08 Tundra and the 08 Tacoma have company now in the inadmissibilty column with the addition of the 07 Tundra. How about adding 07’s to list now!!!!
I spoke to Toyota Canada and Toyota USA yesturday and they told me they can not and will not give me the part numbers of the immobilizers.
Being the optimist it looks to me that Toyota is working on getting things cleared up. The salesman from Idaho told me Toyota will have things cleared up by Monday Dec 17/07. I hope he has an inside track because when I purchased my truck in October he was selling 3-4 vehicles per day to Canadians. Thats a lot of anger Canadians!!!
December 11th, 2007 at 3:50 pm
I agree Simon. It is appalling that the Canadian Gov’t seems content to let manufacturers (who already have a tremendous amount of power -they are mulitnational corporations, after all) have compliance control over Canadian regulations. Who runs our country? the people’s representatives or multinational corporations?
ps. and what is with the car companies meeting in private with our gov’t representatives to discuss this legislative proposal? How can those meeting be kept private and not open to public scrutiny?
December 11th, 2007 at 7:02 pm
Reply to roger haskett says:
December 11th, 2007 at 11:43 am
Re my statement re maximizing shareholder value. You are right, poor business practices especially those that tarnish a brand, do not maximize shareholder value.
I noticed in the draft “minutes” of the Wednesday meeting that Mr. Kash commented that “………………………….Although there are some areas that TC will not harmonize with……………………….”
That a position like that could be taken by Transport Canada is unbelievable. No wonder that CAPC has been unsuccessful and frustrated with Transport Canada after having worked since 2002 to achieve harmonization. The details are posted on the right hand column of this website as “Origins of Harmonization -”
Because of the lack of harmonization which establishes non-tariff barriers that allow manufacturers to charge more in Canada, Canadian car buyers have been paying a premium of over $5 billion a year to the auto companies (the “Canadian market premium”) plus the Federal and Provincial governments (sales taxes). Then there is the premium that they charge on parts. Parts are at least 30% more than they are in the U.S.
I suggest that Minister Cannon needs to give those in Transport Canada who are standing in the way of harmonization a termination with cause notice. They are not working in the best interest of those they are supposed to serve - Canadians.
However, it appears that the officials in Transport Canada have the power to do whatever they want and get away with it. I wonder what the backroom conversation is between the stakeholders at Transport Canada. I doubt that the Minister has a clue as to the position of Transport Canada on harmonization.
It’s hard to stomach the way they treated the Carswithoutborders.com (“CWB”) group. CWB is a second class citizen compared to the automakers and others who were invited to participate in all of the sessions whereas CWB was excluded from many sessions between Transport Canada and the automakers and others.
CWB being told that the Transport Canada tapes of the teleconference were “for internal use only” and thus not being provided with audio of these teleconferences so that it could be streaming audio on this website is unconscionable. . Also CWB’s being told that they should seek legal advice before they streamed any tapes they may have made (if any) undoubtedly created duress for CWB not to releasse any tapes they had (if any). I thought that transparency in Government was one of the planks of the existing Conservative government.
Frankly, with $5 Billion plus a year on the table, the cost of a judicial inquiry of Transport Canada and the automakers behavior is a pittance.
December 11th, 2007 at 8:29 pm
Between this letter and Les’ comments above, could it be that Toyota is preparing to give in on the admissibility side of things with a quick update to the VAFUS after the proposed amendment becomes law, and implementing their Plan “B” to remove all incentives for US dealers to sell to canadians? Hummm…. If so, this might be good for those of us who are looking for a quick resolution to this immobilizer issue but it does not bode well for future imports.
I also wonder whether this directive was sent out to all Toyota dealers or only to those whose ‘territories’ bordered with Canada. Also, how is this directive any different than past directives where Toyota threatened to revoke a dealer’s licence if they sold to Canadians. This didn’t seem to stop dealers who are willing to bend the rules a bit. Let’s just hope that this latest impediment is quickly countered with new creative ways of bending the rules a bit.
December 11th, 2007 at 9:25 pm
I don’t understand how is it legal for a corporation to demand that it’s
affiliates and employees not sell to a group of people? I know it happens (it happened to me and
most others on this site). But how is that legal?
December 11th, 2007 at 10:38 pm
It is not legal. We need to sue Transport Canada and the auto companies. I am ready. Is any one else ready ?????
December 11th, 2007 at 11:17 pm
In case you are interested…
When car prices were lower in Canada that the USA - class action lawsuit against automakers…
http://www.bermanesq.com/pdf/CanadianCar-ClassCertMemo.pdf
December 13th, 2007 at 12:11 pm
Andrew, let’s see how this all pans out. I definitely do feel that the situation needs to be rectified and that this is the time to do it. If need be, I will do “my bit” for a lobby group (if we need to form one) and I will be more than happy to lend my support to the notion of a class action. In the latter case, I think the hard part will be ensuring that the action is presented by the best possible firm of lawyers — I do not for one moment believe that there will be ANY issue at all in finding law firms who are prepared to take on the action.
Let’s hope that a class action won’t be necessary. I sense from the tone on this site that there are many many people who will stand behind an action. I for one feel that there are some extremely important principles at stake here, so we need to take a stand if necessary.
December 17th, 2007 at 6:30 pm
I’m unable to speak to the equipment included on other models, but can say this:
Rest assured, the Part Numbers for the Engine Immobiliser System are identical - for
both US and Canada-destined FJ Cruisers.
Allowing the mfrs to dictate to the RIV as to what is and what is not admissable
is not that different from putting the fox in charge of the henhouse.
You’re doing good work - keep it up.