I realize that you chose to consider this to be a driveability issue and, as you say, unrelated to safety, an assumption or a conclusion that was later changed.
But in testimony to the committee on the date that you mentioned, March 18, the deputy minister of transport addressed the issue of...you'll recall that I asked about safety-related defects and the lack of a clear definition. There currently isn't one under the act. But she made reference to judicial decisions, and she did refer in that context to the department's guidelines for enforcement and compliance policy for defects.
Let me just refresh your memory on some of that. The guidelines also state:
A safety-related defect is generally one that is common to a group of vehicles...of the same design or manufacturer. These defects are likely to affect the safe operation of a vehicle...without providing any prior warning to the vehicle operator or user. Therefore, the defect poses a risk to the vehicle operator, occupants and others.
In its examples of safety-related defects, it clearly states, and I quote: “Accelerator controls that may break or stick”.
Mr. Beatty, could you explain how, based on these guidelines, you would not have issued a notice of defect? How could you justify that?