Transport Committee on June 11th, 2009

[Dick Harris, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I really don't need much time. I have been listening to all the conversation and the questions. It appears to me that in connection with the invitation to express interest that you sent out to the four parties--Cargojet, Esposito, First Air, and Purolator Courier--there wasn't a lot to choose from.

Of those four, I think the only one that really had the fleet or the ability to provide the service--as you've said, 300 flights a day, and Canada is a big country--would have been a company like Purolator in any case. I know very well what relationship they have with Kelowna Flightcraft. I'm not familiar with Esposito, but at Cargojet, of course, they simply don't have the aircraft.

[Moya Greene]

Well, they certainly did not demonstrate to us that they would have been a choice preferable to Purolator, that's for sure.

[Dick Harris, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

So based on your mandate, which is to provide uninterrupted mail service to each of the 15 million mailboxes across the country, it appears to me that you made a pretty prudent business decision in your choice. No one can argue the reputation of Kelowna Flightcraft or Purolator Courier, except when your parcel doesn't show up, but it seemed like a good business decision.

You've just gone over the list of transparency safety nets that are in place, and I have to say that it looks like you did the right thing. I certainly don't share any concerns about any covert type of bidding operation that some of my colleagues appear to think perhaps went on. That's all I have to say.

[Moya Greene]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

I'm going to give each party representative one minute. I will be very strict on the minute, because our guests have other commitments and have to be out of here.

Mr. Volpe.

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

Unfortunately, that means, I guess, that we'll be making statements rather than asking questions. I find it difficult to accept that in the initial contract Canada Post would not have built in, in that 120-day period, an understanding of where to go and what to do next. I'm wondering why you didn't ask UPS and FedEx to respond to your request for information, since you were trying to update market intelligence, and since you already have a business relationship with both, according to your annual report.

Secondly, I have here an affidavit which says that on May 30:

CPC expressed admiration and appreciation for providing such a detailed and qualified RFI response and requested that Cargojet submit a high-level rough cost estimate for our RFI submission. This response further summarized our capabilities, commitment to meet the proposed start-up date, and even offered to buy back any unused capacity that may be available on this new network to further lower unit costs to CPC. It would be difficult for any other service provider to meet the average price per pound offered to CPC on this basis, and CPC told us that we could fully expect to move on to the next stage of the process, the formal RFP-RFQ.

Are they lying?

[Moya Greene]

Well, they did not demonstrate in the RFI process, Mr. Volpe, in the timeframes that we needed it, capacity to carry a lift as extensive as this as well as Purolator did. I mean, we have a relationship with Cargojet. We think they're a fine carrier, but they did not demonstrate in the RFI process the same level of capacity and ancillary services ability and cost that Purolator did.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Laframboise.

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

I have a problem. You mentioned emails and faxes, but did you phone the president and CEO of Air Canada?

[Moya Greene]

Yes, I have his telephone number, as all the members do.

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

Did you phone him about this matter?

[Moya Greene]

No, it is not my job to personally deal with all contracts. You have to bear that in mind. Since I have been the president and CEO, Canada Post has had some 20 million contracts with all kinds of suppliers. I do not deal with all the contract details. We have someone in charge of procurement, someone in charge of operations and someone in charge of finance. It is not my job to handle all of the negotiations. That is not possible. I have to be clear with respect to our processes and ensure that those processes are followed and their objectives, achieved. That is the role of a president and CEO.

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

Ms. Greene, the company does not belong to you. It belongs to the Canadian people.

[Moya Greene]

That is true.

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

If it was so important to you and the company was in danger, in my opinion, your role would have been to pick up the phone, to call Air Canada's president and CEO, and to tell him that the two of you had a problem. I know how you work. I have known you for a few years now. That is fine, but it does not surprise me. It does not surprise me that you did not call.

[Moya Greene]

Mr. Laframboise, with all due respect, those telephone calls were made. They were made by the people who deal with Canada Post's transport networks. They are Canada Post executives. They have extensive experience. That is their area of expertise.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Monsieur Bevington.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Thank you.

I just want to go back to the food mail for a minute, because that CITT ruling said you had put discriminatory practices forward on the food mail. On a particular technicality, that ruling didn't stand. If we see discriminatory practices at one level, does this give us an indication that your corporate practices in general are a bit high-handed? I--

[Moya Greene]

Mr. Bevington, I totally disagree with that premise, and we weren't even a party to that action. This was a disgruntled supplier. We were not even a party to it; DIAND was the party. We were not asked to appear. We presented no evidence.

This is one person's point of view, which is easy to say, particularly when you have no jurisdiction whatsoever in the matter, which CITT was found by the Federal Court of Appeal.... That is the reason why the Federal Court of Appeal quashed the decision.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Well, it was quashed on a technicality, not really on—

[Moya Greene]

It's very easy to smear someone's reputation when they're not even there.

[A voice]

It was quashed.

[Moya Greene]

It was quashed.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

It was quashed on appeal. The original finding was that there were discriminatory practices. It was quashed on appeal because there was a technicality involved and that's—

[Moya Greene]

It was not a technicality. We were not even party to the action. We presented no evidence--