Transport Committee on June 1st, 2010

[Robert Carrier, Bloc, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

In this instance, a very wide recall has been issued by the manufacturer and the process has been very protracted.

Did you demand that the recall be issued more quickly? Did you wait for them to act or had you started your own review of this issue?

[Gerard McDonald]

As I indicated, we had no particular instances of sticky accelerator pedals before this particular issue was brought to our attention, so we were not studying that specific problem at that time.

In terms of manufacturers recalling their vehicles as soon as they determine a safety issue, we want it done as quickly as possible. As soon as we determine a safety issue, we want it done as quickly as possible.

As I indicated, there is always a certain amount of give and take. Manufacturers, for the most part, are responding appropriately. If they don't, then we have to take action under the law, and that can sometimes take more time than we would like.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Thank you. I have to stop you there.

Mr. Watson.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm not sure I have any more questions for Toyota Canada. I think it's clear today that Toyota in Japan decides the critical question of what is safety and what is quality for Canadians. I think it's clear that Toyota Japan decides the critical question as to whether to issue a dealer service bulletin or a safety recall--in other words, whether to comply with or flout Canadian law.

Mr. Chair, the Motor Vehicle Safety Act says that notice is to be served when you become “aware” of a defect. It's clear that Toyota Canada, in its relationship with Toyota in Japan, is a bit like a mushroom: it's left in the dark on critical questions like this.

I think it has become clear to me, Mr. Chair, that these guys can't even wipe their noses unless Toyota Japan tells them they should do it, so I'm going to defer any balance of my time to Mr. Jean or anyone else on our side who may have a question for them. I'm not sure I see the point in asking them questions.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Jean.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Watson.

I lived through part of the time of gas tank explosions in the United States and the situation there, with recalls and some “malmanufacture” of equipment, or at least the incorrect location of gas tanks. You have to excuse me for feeling a little bit excitable about this particular issue, because I don't think brake pedals and their functioning is very different from that. I think it has the possibility of creating a huge situation that could lead to death and, for sure, bodily harm. And I think the civil liability is clear that Toyota is responsible for this, but obviously that's not the question I'm here to answer today.

My question has to do with the timeline. That's really the issue for me. I've had the same issue through all of the meetings we've had, because clearly I don't believe that reasonable notice was followed and that Toyota did respond as they should have.

I asked the question, and you never had the chance to respond, so I'm going to ask it again. Could Toyota Canada have done better, and how?

[Stephen Beatty]

In the specifics of the identification of issues in the field and in transmission of the information back into engineering, and the subsequent steps that were followed, I'm confident that what has happened here was timely, but I recognize that it hasn't given the perception of that.

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

Mr. Beatty, do you really believe, in the situation of a faulty gas pedal and the inability to utilize a brake, when you finally culminate all the data together, that a 90-day notice period is sufficient?

We're talking about approximately 40 different complaints that were substantiated by Europe, the U.S., Canada, and even Estonia. Do you believe that 90 days is a sufficient notice period to the regulator to do something about that? Do you really believe that?

[Stephen Beatty]

Mr. Jean, I would love to be able to move immediately from, you know, the first hint—

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

Substantiated defects, not hints. Not hints, Mr. Beatty. With respect, you had hints for five years before that. We're talking substantiated cases of a defect.

[Stephen Beatty]

So let me just go back to the technology that we're talking about here. The determination in Europe at the time was that it wasn't a safety defect, and that determination was made because of the nature of the notchiness or slow-to-return condition in the pedal. But that was something that was controlled by normal braking in the car.

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

So you believe that Toyota Canada did everything it possibly could in a reasonable timeframe. Is that what you're telling us today?

[Stephen Beatty]

What I'm saying is that I wish I were able to move faster under the specific circumstances of this case--

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

Are you telling us that Toyota Canada moved fast enough under the circumstances, that what they did was reasonable?

[Stephen Beatty]

Under the specific circumstances, we moved as promptly as we possibly could.

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Thank you.

Thank you to our guests today.

More than anything, I think, whether it's by design or bad luck, it seems like the structure at Toyota is one where less information for your other bodies seems to work best for the corporation. And I think the things we hear about timelines.... I've been in the car business, and I know that when dealers got together they shared information so they could improve what they were doing. It might not be a bad idea for Toyota to take some of that into consideration.

With that, I thank our guests. As Mr. Jean has noted, the invitation may be extended again, and we would appreciate your response. Thank you very much.

We're going to take a one-minute break. Then we have some committee business we're going to deal with in the form of a motion by Mr. Volpe. As our guests are moving away from the table, we'll take a one-minute break and come back and deal with the motion.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Welcome back.

Mr. Volpe has put forward a notice of motion. It's before us right now, so I'll ask Mr. Volpe to introduce it. If there is any debate, then we can move forward.

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

Thank you very much, Chairman and colleagues.

As per our discussion on clause-by-clause on Bill C-442, we began to bog down on some detail just prior to the conclusion of the clause-by-clause.

I've proposed this motion: that we continue clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-442 on June 3 from 9 to 11, because I think we're free then, or, if witnesses are confirmed on that date, that a special meeting be called on June 2. You don't need to worry about that, because apparently June 3 has been freed up.

I'm looking for people's agreement on this. I'm hoping the government will agree to continue with clause-by-clause on Thursday.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Are there comments?

Mr. Jean.

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

I think it's a great idea. I think it's an awesome idea.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Okay. Then I will suggest that the motion has been put. All those in favour? We are going to go on June 3, from 9 to 11.

(Motion agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Mr. Volpe.

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

I just want to ask for a point of clarification.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Yes?

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

Since the departmental officials before us said they were looking over my bill, I'm just wondering whether Mr. Jean, on behalf of the government, is going to also look seriously at my bill and propose it as a government bill rather than let it go to second reading.