Evidence of meeting #20 for Transport, Infrastructure and Communities in the 40th Parliament, 3rd session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was information.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
All right. Well, you do have that in the top corner. I'm just curious. This document was provided for us and it's in there: what is the intention of that?
Managing Director, Toyota Canada Inc.
It's in its drafting stages. It is what it is, which is--
Conservative
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
What's the intention of that in the top left corner?
Managing Director, Toyota Canada Inc.
There's none at this point. It's waived.
Conservative
Liberal
Joe Volpe Liberal Eglinton—Lawrence, ON
Thank you very much.
I'd like to come back to this issue about responsibility, because it seems to me, Mr. Beatty, that Toyota Canada has shirked its responsibility of showing some leadership and providing a service to its consumers, as per Mr. Jean's example of his mom.
I'm wondering whether you have compromised the ability of Transport Canada to provide the regulatory responsibility as well. I'll ask Mr. McDonald that in a moment, too, but you came before this committee on the March 16, and in the process of explaining in your testimony the recall process, you took credit for, to use your words, providing a “unique Canadian safety recall on the all-weather floor mat in the newly introduced Toyota Venza”.
Do you recall when that recall was issued?
Managing Director, Toyota Canada Inc.
Absolutely. Transport Canada was notified on November 26.
Liberal
Joe Volpe Liberal Eglinton—Lawrence, ON
You indicated when you initiated this that you were taking this great responsibility, but e-mails that were provided to the committee--by the way, I share Mr. Jean's view that we didn't get all the information we asked for--showed that on October 2, the head of recalls at Transport Canada, Mr. Nigel Mortimer, wrote to Toyota expressing concern that the Venza model was not included in that September recall. That was October 2. He stated that Transport Canada had two cases involving the Venza, and he demanded that Toyota address these concerns immediately.
So here's what happened. You've documented everything in your letter.
On October 7, Toyota issued further recalls, but not for the Venza. Mr. Mortimer wrote to Toyota again and said, “We remain concerned with your current exclusion of the Venza and trust that this will be included in the near future”.
A month later, Transport Canada sent another letter to Toyota, again asking that the Venza be included in the recall. Five weeks later, after November, and in fact, on December 17, a full 11 weeks after being asked to address these concerns immediately, Toyota issued a recall. I'm just wondering if I should be left with the impression, or if the question is, that this is how Toyota always operates, even when under scrutiny.
Managing Director, Toyota Canada Inc.
Let's go back to that chronology for a second. At the beginning of October, both Toyota and Transport Canada were looking at certain field reports and trying to make some determination as to what was happening in respect of Venza. The first cases we had, including the Transport Canada cases, indicated stacking of aftermarket--in other words, non-Toyota--floor mats interfering with pedals in the cars.
We were trying to understand what that meant in connection with the other broader issue of the U.S. all-weather floor mat case that was going on. We combined the work on the review of all of our floor mats. That's why, on November 25 in our meeting with Transport, we reported on all of the mats together and—
Managing Director, Toyota Canada Inc.
—and had the statement the following day.
Liberal
Joe Volpe Liberal Eglinton—Lawrence, ON
Yes, I know, but that just isn't good enough. We read through those e-mails, some of the reports by your field investigators and Transport Canada's field investigators, and they dismissed that as just a lot of crock. That's all it is. In fact, some of those e-mails, if they're read out publicly, would embarrass anybody and would embarrass everybody.
But the issue is not so much that you had to wait for this or for that; it's that you took 11 weeks after Transport Canada, the regulator, demanded that you act—11 weeks. They had information and you wouldn't act on it.
It boggles the mind that Transport Canada didn't immediately act the way the minister said he would, i.e. launch investigations, yet you admit that you knew all of these things and you wouldn't do anything about it for 11 weeks. That's three months of people driving under dangerous conditions.
How can you look at yourself in the mirror and say it's okay for me to let people drive with a defective vehicle for three months while I make up my mind that this isn't a routine or maintenance procedure and that in fact it is a safety-related defect?
There he is, right there, Mr. McDonald from Transport Canada, who's telling you, “Wake up”.
Managing Director, Toyota Canada Inc.
Mr. Chairman, I think if you were to review those documents you'd also notice that the documents explicitly state that there wasn't a defect in the vehicle. There was one set of rubber floor mats in Venza that were out of specification, which we were able to determine and we took action about that. We did that in the period from the beginning of October to our meeting with Transport Canada in November--
Liberal
Joe Volpe Liberal Eglinton—Lawrence, ON
Don't insist, Mr. Beatty: your field investigators in the United States and in Canada, transport field investigators in the United States and in Canada, were saying “this is a crock”. In fact, one field investigator, whose name is wiped out, said, here I am, this height, this weight, this size, I have both of my feet on the brake and I can't do this.
It has nothing to do with floor mats. It has everything to do with shirking responsibility. It has everything to do with avoiding your own leadership on your products and it--
Conservative
Bloc
Mario Laframboise Bloc Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
My question is directed to Mr. Tanaka.
You mentioned earlier that the decision to issue a recall about the gas pedal defect was made in Japan. Your research centre is in Japan. The decision was made in Japan, but where was the research done and what was the process followed? There had been complaints from Canada, the United States, Europe. You put them together and then a more extensive analysis was done in Japan, am I right?
General Manager, Under Body Design Division, Toyota Motor Corporation
Yes, in Japan.
Bloc
Mario Laframboise Bloc Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC
Is your best performing research centre in Japan?
Bloc
Mario Laframboise Bloc Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC
So, Mr. McDonald, there has been a series of complaints in Canada, in the United States and in Europe. That makes it complex.
I always return to how we can ensure that this will not reoccur. As my colleague Mr. Carrier said earlier, we might have to rethink a number of things.
Presently, you receive complaints about manufacturing defects. The act compels manufacturers to give you notice of defects. You receive complaints from consumers but the majority are made to the dealers and the companies themselves. They are required, when they become aware of a defect, to notify you and to do a follow-up.
As we have seen, the gas pedal issue is complex. These are new technologies. If we were to decide that complaints must be transmitted to Transport Canada at the same time as they are received, say, at the headquarters of Toyota in Japan, would we have the equipment and technology required to deal with them? Would it be too complex? Could you explain how we could improve this process?
Associate Assistant Deputy Minister, Safety and Security, Department of Transport
There's no doubt that it's a complex system. You have to understand that we're dealing with something on the order of 5,000 vehicle manufacturers and importers in Canada. To think that Transport Canada would have complete oversight over every aspect of every vehicle brought into this country is probably not realistic. We definitely have to work in concert with the manufacturers, the importers, and the distributors, working together to find any safety defects that may exist.
Are there different ways to do it? Should the federal government have a greater amount of oversight? I think these are all considerations we may want to look at, but obviously this would not be without certain resource implications depending on what level of intervention we would like the federal government to have.
Bloc
Mario Laframboise Bloc Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC
You said earlier that in the United States complaints have to be reported to the regulatory authority but that they nevertheless were no better at determining the problem than we were. This is what you said, did you not?
Associate Assistant Deputy Minister, Safety and Security, Department of Transport
No. I'll clarify that a bit. In the United States, they have an act called the TREAD act, I believe. What it requires is that manufacturers report defects to NHTSA, whether they occur in the United States or anywhere else in the world. That's a provision we do not have in our law. They've had that provision for some time.
As I understand it, one of the problems NHTSA has is that they have more information than they can realistically analyze and deal with. As to whether or not they had any particular information about the sticky accelerator in Toyota, I really can't comment on that. But obviously they do receive a lot more information than we would, and their concern is how to deal with all that information.
