Evidence of meeting #22 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 purolator.
A recording is available from Parliament.
10:30 a.m.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
Yes, thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, witnesses, for answering all our questions in relation to transparency and accountability and for letting us know that you actually have the interests of Canadian taxpayers at heart. That's good to see.
I'll go back to the Office of the Auditor General of Canada. With 44 pages of a special examination report done in 2009, I take it that was an extensive study and that the Office of the Auditor General was around for a period of time on Canada Post.
What interests me in relation to this is in the nineties my family owned a printing shop, which had printing and signs and mailboxes, and we actually had a relationship with Purolator—and I didn't even know Canada Post owned it at the time. In fact, we were a delivery centre for them. They had a Xerox franchise and some other things. So we had a pretty good relationship. I had about 120 mailboxes.
Actually, at that stage, I never thought Canada Post was a very good manager and steward, just simply from what I'd seen. But in looking at some of these examinations, especially.... I understand that in 2006 Canada Post had been working towards what it called the “modern post”. I was interested in this, and I thought some Canadians might be as well.
The corporation reorganized along its three major lines of business: transaction mail, parcels, and direct marketing. Does Purolator do that kind of thing as well? Does it identify three main elements to become a more efficient and modern post service? For instance, Canada Post is engaged in employees, investing in infrastructure, and growing the business. It seems they reoriented a quite old business model into a new business model to reflect the changes, such as e-mail and things like that. Does Purolator do that on a consistent basis?
10:35 a.m.
President and Chief Executive Officer, Purolator Courier Ltd.
I can speak to that. A number of years ago, about eight years ago, we expanded our footprint into the U.S. It's not the overnight express model we operate in Canada; it's built more on a freight forwarding model. We operate in about 16 American cities. There are sales offices, and we make arrangements for shippers who want to do business with Canada to drop ship product in consolidated form. Ninety-nine percent of it is on truck. A little bit of it is on small aircraft out of New York. We distribute that product for American companies wanting to do business throughout Canada.
10:35 a.m.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
In essence, to do business in the United States, you're telling me, indirectly I think, that Purolator is a profitable company and it can compete with anybody in the world.
10:35 a.m.
President and Chief Executive Officer, Purolator Courier Ltd.
Absolutely.
10:35 a.m.
Conservative
10:35 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
Thank you.
With that, I'll thank our guests for being here today. We appreciate your time. If there are any further questions that come forward, we'll be in touch with you either directly or through the mail.
10:35 a.m.
A voice
Or through Purolator.
10:35 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
Now, while our guests are moving away from the table, I would remind the committee that we deferred the other portion of committee business until now. Mr. Bevington made his presentation at the last meeting and we were opening the floor for discussion. We can now move forward.
Is there any further comment on Mr. Bevington's motion?
Mr. Jean.
10:35 a.m.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
I did do some research in relation to this motion. What struck me the most, interestingly enough, is that NRCan is currently studying the same issue because of a motion brought forward by the NDP at that committee. As well, the Senate is engaging in a similar motion that has the same criteria--in essence, to study.
My difficulty is that I don't know why the NDP is coming forward with a motion that quite frankly has nothing to do with Transport Canada, if I can be so blunt. In fact it's better placed with NRCan, because anything to do with offshore drilling has to do with NRCan.
Those are my two issues. The first is that other committees are studying this. Why not let those committees finish their work, and if there's something additional we need to deal with that hasn't been dealt with in the study, let's deal with it. Finally, from my research, NRCan has the responsibility in relation to all the offshore drilling and any spills that happen as a result.
That would be my suggestion.
10:35 a.m.
NDP
Dennis Bevington NDP Western Arctic, NT
I think quite clearly there are two questions. One is that Natural Resources Canada is dealing with drilling regulations that deal with the potential for creating a spill by the way the drilling operations are conducted. They're doing that work.
Transport Canada is the lead regulatory agency for the national oil spill preparedness and response regime. They're not in charge of developing the drilling regulations, but they are definitely in charge of the response to any spills that occur.
This is from Transport Canada's website. Quite clearly, it states that they do regime management and oversight. They develop regulations and standards. They enforce and implement regulations relating to response organizations. They oversee an appropriate level of national preparedness. These are things that Transport Canada, on its website, indicates it has the responsibility for.
When we look at oil spills--and these oil spills can be from any source--the responsibility for the oil spill comes under Transport Canada. The responsibility for developing drilling regulations and the way people conduct their business is with Natural Resources Canada. That's the difference.
I think if we don't recognize that we have this larger role of regime management, then we're not fulfilling a function that quite clearly is required. We have to have a coordinated effort between a variety of departments within the government to respond to spills. That includes the coast guard and a number of other organizations.
The coast guard is responsible for conducting spill management but not for setting up the regime and overseeing the management. The coast guard is the contractor, you might say, that does the spill work. Transport Canada is ultimately responsible for ensuring that spill management is conducted in a fashion that is correct for the country.
10:40 a.m.
Bloc
Mario Laframboise Bloc Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC
The debate is already underway. The Standing Committee on Natural Resources is discussing the issue. This issue is so complex that, if we open up the debate to more committees, the public might have a hard time following us. The Standing Committee on Natural Resources will deal with the issue, and that is how it should be. I will therefore not support the motion.
As for the Senate, if the NDP and Liberal Party merge, they might succeed in having their own senators. They will then be able to discuss the matter at the Senate.
10:40 a.m.
Liberal
Joe Volpe Liberal Eglinton—Lawrence, ON
The talk of coalitions is reviving interest in the activities of Parliament Hill, and I know both the government and the Bloc share a common colour: it's blue, and they're busy in the process of trying to educate the Canadian public about just how it is that the Government of Canada is dominated by the Bloc and the Conservative coalition.
That said as an introduction, Mr. Chair, I can appreciate that all of these other committees are taking an interest in the obvious—the obvious being, of course, the world attention that's being placed on the untold billions of dollars of damage, environmental and economic, associated with the rupture of that pipe by BP—but it has called into question something the government uses for virtually everything as justification for its inaction, or “mal-action”, and that is security. Economic security, environmental security, fiscal security, whatever adjective one wants to use in front of security, that's the issue all the time. The lead spokesman in all of this is always the Minister of Transport.
That said, we obviously cannot do it in this next week, but I think it would be important for this committee to turn its attention to what the notice of motion asks. So I'm going to suggest that you call the question.
10:40 a.m.
NDP
Dennis Bevington NDP Western Arctic, NT
On clarification, I think committee members have to understand that if we do enter into a major spill problem in Canada, the responsibility for overseeing and ensuring that we have a spill response that's appropriate lies with this department, and this committee should take an active interest in that. The results of not doing that are pretty onerous. If we have a spill in Canada and we don't have a well-developed spill control regime in place, that responsibility is with Transport Canada and with this committee.
We can't simply fob it off on Natural Resources Canada. They are dealing with oil drilling regulations, which are completely different from what we're talking about here. To suggest that somehow they're going to come to accomplish something that is actually in the purview of Transport Canada I think just doesn't work. We need to take this seriously.
Just the fact that the parliamentary secretary didn't understand the role of Transport Canada in dealing with spill regulation says to me that something is missing here.
I would like to ensure that he's enlightened as well as to what the responsibilities of Transport Canada are. Simply in a very non-partisan fashion, I want to make sure that the government completely understands what its role is. I think this is something the government should take heed of. If we're debating over who has the responsibility to control oil spills in this country, that suggests to me that we should review the action so that we clearly understand whose roles and responsibilities are on the line here. Without that taking place, we've abrogated our responsibility for the preparedness that we need in case of these oil spills.
To me, the discussion that is taking place here today suggests that this should be done.
10:45 a.m.
Conservative
Jeff Watson Conservative Essex, ON
I assume there will be a vote on this motion at some point. I notice that Mr. Kennedy is sitting at the table. I don't know whether he signed in for the purposes of voting, or whether only the current members at the table will be voting. I want that to be clear.
10:45 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
That's not a point of order.
Mr. Volpe has the same point of order. It's not a point of order if we want to raise a new one.
10:45 a.m.
Liberal
Joe Volpe Liberal Eglinton—Lawrence, ON
No, it's the same point of order. I think the precedent was established by the Minister of Transport in another committee, when he came and sat at a committee. I'm wondering whether Mr. Watson would like to rewrite history and say that it didn't work then, it shouldn't have worked then, and it shouldn't work now.