Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Let me start off my comments by saying that I don't in any way diminish the importance of labour disputes and a speedy resolution of those. Over my years, I've been a member of two unions. I've been a part of strikes. I've also been on the management side of strikes.
So I have enough experience to know that these disputes should be resolved in a speedy manner. Whether it's the role of this government, and more specifically this committee, to intervene in this dispute, even by looking at it and investigating, is a different matter altogether.
Actually, Mr. Chair, I'm going to raise a point of order and ask you to rule that this motion is out of order.
I'll give you the reasons why; they have nothing to do with my sentiments on either side of that dispute, because I don't know much about it.
I will say this, though: if you look at the motion that's before us, it is not at all clear what the subject of that motion is. One of the key elements of a notice of motion is to provide notice to members of the committee on the matter that they will be dealing with. All we know is that the reference in the motion is to “study the current situation with regard to airport limousine drivers”. Now, is that a salary dispute? Is that a dispute over access to spots at the airport? Is it a dispute over scheduling, profitability, licensing? We don't know what it is. It just refers to “the current situation”. Of course, as a newcomer to this committee, I have no idea what the background is. I come here quite unprepared for the matter we're discussing.
For example, one of the key elements of this motion--if we understand it to involve a labour dispute between taxi drivers, their company, and the GTAA--will involve trying to determine whether or not we have any jurisdiction at all to deal with this. As we deal with providing notice, we have to determine whether the labour dispute in hand is even one that is federally regulated. We don't know; we haven't had an opportunity, from the notice we've received, to make that determination. We didn't know it involved a labour dispute.
For example, I've just asked staff behind me to try to determine, does the GTAA actually issue licences? I haven't confirmed that for myself. Are these taxi drivers in any way regulated under provincial law? I don't know that. I don't know even the name of the company that they have their dispute with.
This whole purpose of providing a notice of motion is to give advance notice sufficient to provide members of this committee with information at hand in order to do the research and be able to debate this out of some position of knowledge.
That's why, first of all, I believe the notice of motion is out of order: it's simply too vague and doesn't actually provide this committee with the information it needs.
The second issue, of course, has already been raised: this is essentially a labour dispute. We have another committee of Parliament, I believe, that is more appropriate to address a labour issue. It certainly doesn't fall within the purview of this committee to address labour issues. Even if they are labour issues that fall under the Canada Labour Code, the mandate of this committee, even the scope of the mandate of this committee, I don't believe can accommodate that kind of study or review.
Finally, perhaps the most important aspect of it, as Ms. Dhalla has stated...and I very much respect her intervening on behalf of the taxi drivers, but under the principle of sub judice, any matter that is presently before the courts, or is being litigated in one manner or another, ought generally not to be the purview of this committee until that dispute has been disposed of in a final way.
This study has been put off until March 24. There is a very high chance that any determination at arbitration might be appealed. The arbitration might be delayed, so to establish a date now would probably be unwise.
Quite aside from that, the fact that this matter is currently the subject of a dispute that is within a quasi-judicial body would compel us as a committee not to deal with it until after that dispute had been resolved.
Mr. Chair, I would ask that you rule this motion out of order, not because I necessarily oppose the matter that appears to be the subject of this, but because it violates the principle I mentioned, plus the motion itself hasn't provided us with the kind of notice we'd need to properly debate it at this committee.
Thank you.