Transport Committee on March 11th, 2010

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Order, please.

Good morning, everyone. Welcome to the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, meeting two.

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), we are studying the recall of vehicles manufactured by Toyota Motor Corporation.

I have a point of order by Mr. Volpe.

[Joe Volpe, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Mr. Chairman and colleagues, let me first welcome our newest member, Ms. Bonnie Crombie, to the committee.

Mr. Chair, with respect to paragraph three on our first report, and the invitation that we've extended to representatives of Toyota Motor Corporation, I just want it to be very clear, on the record, that when we discussed who we wanted, we were looking for those people who had the decision-making capacity with respect to Toyota Motor Corporation and its products in Canada and, I dare say, in the United States.

I proposed, as you see in the report, Mr. Yoshimi Inaba. My understanding is that Toyota Canada is proposing somebody different.

Now, the person who represents Toyota Canada, Mr. Stephen Beatty, in response to a question from the Financial Post about why Yoshimi Inaba was the correct person to appear before the congressional committees in the United States, answered as follows:

The North American president [Yoshimi Inaba], the person responsible for all the consolidated operations in North America, is the person that will appear before the committee and was the one invited to appear before the committee and the person most intimately aware of all those operations and the chronology.

That's making reference to Toyota in North America.

He is the right person to be there.

And in my view, “there” also means here.

When Mr. Beatty was asked why Mr. Inaba was a better person than the president of the company, he went on to explain as follows:

In part, because he was the former president of Toyota Motor Sales and has steered the company through those years of its development in North America.

Now, why would we accept anybody less than that to appear before this committee? Are we going to allow the suggestion to prevail that Toyota doesn't think as highly of its Canadian market as it does of its North American market; or maybe that the congressional committees in the United States are more worthy of deference than the House committees here in Canada; or maybe that the consumers in Canada are not as worthy of protection and access to information as those in the United States; or, even worse, in terms of the information that's going to be sent, all of the proprietors of Toyota products in the United States are worthy of greater attention than those in Canada?

Mr. Chairman, I just want it to be on the record that if Mr. Inaba is not here, there's no need for us to talk to anybody else. As far as we're concerned, there's no need for us to talk to any of the other officials that Toyota wants to present before this committee. It's absolutely ridiculous that we should be treated as second- and third-class parliamentarians in North America and as consumers not worthy of the protection that Toyota is offering the rest of its consumers around the world and in North America.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Thank you, Mr. Volpe.

I have heard the comments. I'm going to allow a couple of comments, but I think the instruction, based on the report, is accurate. We will again confer those messages to the corporation.

Please.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It is nice to be back here at the transport committee.

Mr. Volpe is correct in identifying this as a serious issue. It relates to the type of testimony we will get. I would actually prefer that Mr. Toyoda would also come to Canada. This is about reciprocity concerning how Toyota is dealing with the recall issue, not just in the United States, but, more importantly for us and our responsibility, in Canada.

There is clearly a difference in what is taking place. In the United States Mr. Toyoda has identified several different features that they will provide their customers and also non-customers of assurances of public safety from what they are doing here in Canada.

To have obstruction of suggested witnesses to this committee is very concerning at this particular point, because we are asking for something that is very simple and very succinct relative to what is happening on Capitol Hill, where Toyota customers in the United States enjoy different benefits of this recall, where their country will get different results due to these recalls, and accountability. In fact, Mr. Toyoda promised the U.S. Congress worldwide information that Toyota has yet to provide to this committee and the industry committee, which I have requested they provide. They will provide that information to the United States, but they will not provide that, at this point and date, to this committee or the industry committee.

These are serious matters that need to be investigated. I am hoping, at the very least, that they will understand we are serious about looking at this issue. We expect the same treatment as our cousins to the south. Anything less will be unacceptable to the people of Canada.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Thank you.

I don't want to turn this into a debate, but I am going to listen to a couple more.

Monsieur Laframboise.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Chair, by inviting the Toyota officials, our committee clearly wants to meet with the most senior managers. I read the same article as Mr. Volpe. The president of Toyota Canada commented on the operations in the United States. If the president of Toyota Canada considers that someone else should be here and if he has a superior, my message is that it would be in his best interest to make him come here. But I know that the operations of Toyota Canada are different from the operations in the rest of North America.

So, since he made this statement, it is certain that if he appears before the committee, he will have to answer questions like Mr. Volpe's, among others. It is a choice. We asked Toyota Canada's most senior managers to appear before our committee. I obviously hope they will.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Thank you.

Mr. Jean.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would agree with Monsieur Laframboise. The committee is here to investigate. Quite frankly, we are prejudging if we suggest that we know better than Toyota who to send here. We can ask them questions. Certainly we have other powers, as a committee, to do further investigation and decide whether their answers are forthcoming or not. Canadians want us to do that, but I also think Canadians want us to take advantage of the witnesses we have here today, which is Transport Canada, to see how they've dealt with this issue. It is a very important issue for the safety and security of Canadians, and I think we should hear them.

Certainly if we are not satisfied with Toyota on Tuesday, then we can deal with that after we hear from them. We have invited him as a witness. If he comes forward, that's great. If he doesn't, then we can invite him again.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Watson, for a final comment.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

I have just a brief comment.

Mr. Chair, I thought the Oscars were last week, but after watching Mr. Volpe and our visiting member, Mr. Masse, one would wonder whether they are upcoming this week.

My point is a simple one. Every committee has a starting point. If Mr. Volpe doesn't want to hear testimony from today's witnesses, he knows where the door is, but I am interested in asking some questions today.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

We will move on with that now.

I am going to introduce our guests and welcome them. From the Department of Transport we have Mr. Gerard McDonald, who is the associate assistant deputy minister of safety and security; Mr. Trevor Lehouillier, who is the head of defect investigations; and Mr. Louis-Philippe Lussier, the chief, defect investigations and recalls department.

Welcome. You have a presentation, and then we'll move to questions.

Please, take it away.

[Gerard McDonald, Associate Assistant Deputy Minister, Safety and Security Group, Department of Transport]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for allowing us to appear before your committee to discuss what for us is a very important issue.

First allow me to introduce myself. My name is Gerard McDonald, as the chair noted, and I am the associate assistant deputy minister for safety and security within Transport Canada. This includes the oversight of our road safety program. I'm accompanied today by two of my colleagues, Monsieur Louis-Philippe Lussier, the chief of our defects investigation and recalls division, and Mr. Trevor Lehouillier, head of our defects investigation section.

My officials and I have been working hard on issues related to the recent recalls affecting some of the models of Toyota and Lexus vehicles.

I am here to provide some background on the issue, outline the action the department has taken to protect Canadian motorists, and clarify the manufacturer's obligations under the Motor Vehicle Safety Act.

In terms of background, as you know, Toyota recently announced a series of recall and recall extensions affecting several of its vehicle models. The first recall in October 2009 dealt with the potential for an unsecured or incompatible driver's floor mat to interfere with the accelerator pedal. A second recall was issued in January 2010 due to certain accelerator pedal mechanisms that may mechanically stick in a partially depressed position or return slowly to the idle position when released.

Last month, Transport Canada was informed of additional recalls involving the 2010 Prius and Lexus hybrid vehicles and some 2010 Camrys. Under the Motor Vehicle Safety Act, all manufacturers or importers who become aware of a safety-related defect in their vehicle must give immediate notice of such defects to the government and affected owners. If they don't, recourse is available, including legal action against the company.

In each of these cases, Toyota informed Transport Canada as per their legal obligation under the act. And in each case, Transport Canada met with Toyota to discuss each recall and to push Toyota to take all necessary corrective actions so that the safety of consumers is protected.

We made sure that Canadian consumers were provided with the full extent of safety related repairs that Toyota customers in the U.S. will receive, despite some differences in the models across the border.

Likewise, our officials are working with General Motors of Canada Limited as well as other manufacturers to ensure corrective action is taken by all of them.

With respect to the incompatible floor mat issue, Canadian owners of affected Toyota and Lexus vehicle models were notified directly by Toyota about the measures. The floor mats installed in Toyota cars sold in Canada are different than those sold in the United States. Specifically, our floor mats are less rigid than those in the U.S. and better conform to the shape of the floor of the vehicle.

Nevertheless, we still required Toyota to undertake additional measures to reduce risks to their customers, in parallel with the repairs that are being made to U.S. vehicles.

With respect to the sticking pedal recall, Toyota Canada informed Transport Canada on January 21, 2010, of the sticky pedal issue when they issued a notice of defect, taking responsibility for this defect and for its remedy. The very next day, departmental officials met with Toyota to discuss the issue, and on January 29, 2010, Toyota presented us with the technical solution to fix the sticking accelerator issue as well as their action plan to implement the solution. Part of the solution includes Toyota directly notifying Canadian owners of affected Toyota and Lexus vehicle models about the recalls. It also includes Toyota Canada undertaking a safety improvement campaign for Canadian customers.

Finally, the department has investigated the Prius braking issue and remains in continual communication with Toyota Canada to ensure all identified defects in these vehicles are addressed and remedied as quickly as possible.

As a matter of normal business practice, we are also in continual contact with our defects investigation and recalls counterparts in the U.S. Governments National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to compare notes and to share information on our respective investigations. The vehicle fleets in the two countries are more similar than they are to other countries. This is because our safety and other standards are closely harmonized. Hence, it behooves the two sides to share information since problems may crop up first in one or the other country. And this is indeed happening.

While Toyota Canada is currently meeting its legal obligations to the Government of Canada, Transport Canada will monitor the completion and the effectiveness of the different recall campaigns. Transport Canada has a system in place to track, log and follow public complaints of potential safety defects in vehicles. In fact, an average of 1,200 complaints are received, logged and analyzed each year by a team of 10 full-time technical investigators.

Canadians who call to lodge a complaint don't simply leave a message. They actually speak to a specialist who has the knowledge to gather the necessary information required to properly evaluate the complaint. Following initial screening of complaints, information is entered into the public complaint database and then is used during the process of research and investigation. Copies of each complaint are forwarded to the company to ensure it is aware of the event and file findings.

Transport Canada officials also meet regularly with manufacturers and the two sides share information on consumer-related issues. While the responsibility for determining the existence of safety-related defects rests with the manufacturer, Transport Canada's investigators also independently gather evidence to help determine whether a safety-related defect exists in a group of vehicles.

If we believe a safety-related defect may exist, we will gather additional evidence to confirm if our belief is correct. We do this through vehicle component inspection, testing, and other proven investigative techniques. If a company and Transport Canada cannot come to an agreement about the existence of a defect, the department will prepare a case file alleging non-compliance with the notice of defect provision of the Motor Vehicle Safety Act and submit it to the Attorney General for prosecution in the courts.

Members of the committee, the Government of Canada expects all vehicle manufacturers, including Toyota, to be fully accountable and transparent in identifying problems with their vehicles and to take all actions necessary to ensure the safety of consumers. We will continue to monitor very closely all developments related to recalls involving Toyota, and we will continue our work to protect Canadians. We want Canadians to enjoy safe vehicles and to have confidence in their vehicles.

Mr. Chairman, I would now like to table a document, with your permission, that the committee members may find useful. The document is a list of all complaints since the year 2000 regarding Toyota vehicles that we have in our database deposited by Canadians on potential safety-related defects. I would note that this information is documented in the language used by individual vehicle owners who contacted Transport Canada to report their particular problems. In essence, Mr. Chairman, we would like to be as open as possible with the committee.

Mr. Chairman, with your concurrence, I would now ask Mr. Lehouillier to present a brief PowerPoint deck to provide some useful background on defect investigations and recalls that the committee may find useful, and then we would be happy to take any questions the members may have.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Before we proceed, you have a document that you're going to table, or you have circulated it?

[Gerard McDonald]

We will table it, Mr. Chairman.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

After the presentations? If you have it now, we could circulate it.

[Gerard McDonald]

It's a very large document. It would take some time to copy if the members wanted to see it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

You only have one copy?

[Gerard McDonald]

I only have one copy at the moment.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

I will see that the clerk copies and distributes it.

Mr. Masse, a point of order.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

It will be important for us to review the document so we can actually ask questions about the document. Getting it at this time, as opposed to in advance, is problematic to be able to ask questions of the witnesses. There could be issues as to why it wasn't previously provided, and that's okay.

I'm wondering whether or not we should either reserve the right...or suspend the hearings for the moment to review the document, because normally when we have testimony we get that in advance, especially from departments, especially a speech or.... We have a little bit of a deck here, a couple of pages, but also, if we're getting a substantial document that isn't even available by reproducing it, then I'm not sure how well we're going to be able to listen to the witnesses and then leaf through the document to ask questions relevant to that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Monsieur Laframboise.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Chair, I personally have no problems with that, unlike Mr. Masse. I had already had a series of questions about the recalls and the public complaints. The analysis has already been done and the department will be able to answer my questions. If we want to ask any other questions after reading the document, we can always invite the witnesses to appear before the committee again. I have no problem with that.

Today, I have questions on the complaints that have been lodged. If you have Toyota's, you also have the analysis. You have already done it. You have the answers. I am ready to ask my questions.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Merci.

Mr. Volpe.

[Joe Volpe, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank Mr. McDonald for coming to give his presentation.

I listened dutifully, but when he introduced the presentation of a document he was prepared to table--I think those were his exact words--as being some supporting evidence for the fact that the department has been doing things in a very competent and legal fashion, and he doesn't have it for us in both official languages, I think he's testing the patience of members of Parliament and he's impugning the integrity of the committee to have access to information it is investigating.

If he's not prepared to provide us with the documentation he says is important, I think there is very little use in hearing whatever else he's got to say. Otherwise, we're going to be questioning his credibility for the rest of this sitting. I just find this absolutely unacceptable.

As does Monsieur Laframboise, I have my questions ready as well. But this is absolutely unacceptable that a witness, especially a member of the department, would come forward and say, “Listen to me, I'm doing a great job. And by the way, just so you know what a great job I'm doing, I'm going to give you a document that shows what a job I've been doing for the last ten years, but I don't have it here and I don't have it in both official languages and I haven't compiled it yet.”

What kinds of fools do you take us for?

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Jean.