Transport Committee on March 3rd, 2011

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

I had meant to erase that part, “that there will be no votes during this meeting”, and replace it with the other one.

[Chad Mariage]

Okay. Good.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Does everybody understand that?

I'll open the....

Did you want to give an explanation?

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

I was suggesting that Ruby Dhalla might, in my place.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Sure. Absolutely.

[Ruby Dhalla, Liberal, Brampton—Springdale, ON]

I just want to thank all of my colleagues for making me feel so welcome. It's the first time in my parliamentary career that I've been to the committee on transport, and it's a pleasure to be here.

I'm here today on behalf of a number of my constituents and drivers of airport limousines at Pearson International Airport who live not only in my riding of Brampton—Springdale but also in many other ridings in the surrounding GTA area. These drivers of airport limousines at Pearson Airport have been locked out by their employer, the McIntosh Group of Companies. There are two subsidiary companies to that: Air Cab Limousine and Aaroport Limousine.

Since December 1, 2010, their situation has been very unfortunate. They have been locked out as a result of some alleged unfair business practices. The allegations that have been put forward by the drivers include the mandatory purchasing of the actual vehicle itself from the employer, the mandatory transfer of ownership to the employer without any confirmation of paperwork, the mandatory purchase of insurance from the employer itself. They also include payment of grossly inflated sums of money, for both the permit and the dispatch fees. When you take a look at all of the allegations, it is very clear and evident that these drivers, who are very hard working and who are trying to put food on the table for their families, are clearly being exploited.

They have been protesting out in the freezing cold. I actually had a chance to go and visit them. I've been on the phone with them continuously. It's really kind of a heart-wrenching situation. There have been attempts to resolve the situation for these 200 drivers, but unfortunately there has not been much success. I really strongly feel, as I'm sure many of you will agree, that in light of the circumstances surrounding the lockout, in light of the terms and conditions that are being imposed by the employer who has received the licences from the GTAA, that we as parliamentarians, and especially the transport committee, have a responsibility to study exactly what's going on, just to basically be able to shed some light, and hopefully the result will be a positive outcome.

There is the issue of the drivers themselves and their families and livelihoods that are being affected. As I said, they have been in lockout since December 1, which is a substantial amount of time, and that also included the busy season over the holidays. In addition, I think it's also causing a grave inconvenience to many passengers at Pearson who are having to wait hours to be able to get some sort of transport to get to where they're going. I would hope that we would find support from all members of this committee to be able to study this in this one particular meeting, which would be held, as my colleague John McCallum, said, on Wednesday, March 23, from 11 o'clock to 1 o'clock, and at which we would be able to hear first-hand from the drivers, from the owners, and from the GTAA themselves. So I would ask for your support in this motion.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Thank you.

I just want to take one 30-second break to consult, and I'll be right back.

For the information of the committee, I'm seeking an answer.

If I may ask, is the dispute between the company and the taxi drivers, or is it between the company, the taxi drivers, and the airport?

[Ruby Dhalla, Liberal, Brampton—Springdale, ON]

It's between the company and the drivers. The GTAA, which is, obviously as we know, at arm's length, is the one that issues the licences to the actual company. Because the GTAA is supposed to be at arm's length, there is a provision within the GTAA rules that gives them the power to investigate if the person to whom they've granted the licence is not following the terms and conditions. That's why, when we put the motion forward, it was in the general context of being able to listen to all three parties to ensure that there is fairness and transparency all across the board.

If that poses any type of issue, we can--

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

The only challenge or thought I had, and I think I did interpret it right, is it struck me as a labour issue as opposed to a transport issue.

Having said that, I'm not sure how it.... It states that we're tasked and empowered to deal with other matters relating to the mandate, management, organization, or operation of the department as the committee deems fit.

I'm going to hear some comment on it before I make a final decision. I'll start with Mr. Byrne.

[Gerry Byrne, Liberal, Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, NL]

Mr. Chair, the issue of ground transportation at Pearson International Airport has been an issue for quite some time. If one were to look at a potential issue within the federal jurisdiction, I believe this issue is worth studying by the committee because it does refer to exactly what autonomous powers were indeed granted to airport authorities in the performance of their operations and administration of the national transportation system, the national airport system.

There is a serious problem at Pearson International Airport, and it has not been just since December 2010. I know from personal experience that Pearson has had issues with its taxi service, its ground transportation service affecting passengers, for at least four years.

From the point of view of being able to look at this particular issue itself, I think the committee has an opportunity not only to investigate the specifics but then, as well, if we so decide, to determine whether or not it does have some impact on the nature of the agreements between the Government of Canada, Transport Canada, and the airport authorities in the administration of their duties to provide efficient and effective transportation systems in this country.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

I have Mr. Warkentin, and then Mr. Laframboise, Mr. Fast, and Mr. Watson.

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

I'm just looking for some clarification. My understanding is that cab drivers, even at the airports, aren't necessarily federally regulated, and unless I'm mistaken, they aren't even an entity of the airport itself.

I'm just a little bit confused about how this would apply to this particular committee. If they are federally regulated, I could see it going to a committee that's seized with labour issues.

That's a question. I do know it's a concern. I know my Conservative colleagues from the area have been concerned about the issue and have been hoping this would come to a resolution.

I understand an arbitration meeting is coming up. I don't know that any committee would want to be sitting predating or during an arbitration meeting. I'm hearing this may be under way.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

I'll ask Ms. Dhalla to respond.

[Ruby Dhalla, Liberal, Brampton—Springdale, ON]

Arbitration has been scheduled for March 9, and I don't think anyone in the House would want to interfere with that. That's why the amendment was made for March 23. They have had a number of meetings. Unfortunately, there hasn't been a successful outcome.

Just to mention, in terms of what the chair and my colleague were saying, this is not just about a labour dispute. I've been elected for six years and this conflict and tension has been going on for the last four or five years. I think the committee has a responsibility to investigate exactly what is going on when the GTAA is issuing the permits to these employers, and all these types of allegations are being brought forward.

It's not really a labour issue. I think it goes beyond that. It goes to the department, to the management of the GTAA, which is ultimately a responsibility under the Government of Canada and the Ministry of Transport. That's why I think it's important that we find out exactly what's going on with regard to those services.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Monsieur Laframboise.

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

Mr. Chair, Ms. Dhalla's point of view is interesting. As you know, in 2009-2010, and even well before that, I sat on this same committee. In Montreal, all the Bloc Québécois MPs had to step in with the Aéroports de Montréal, which issues permits differently than they do in Toronto. In both cases, it's the airport authority.

There was a real commotion about the issuing of permits. There were arrests following a bribery case. Also, there were various incidents of influence peddling. Aéroports de Montréal resolved the problem before the matter came before the Standing Committee of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities. We had also told Aéroports de Montréal that we would look into the situation if the people involved did not resolve it.

In my opinion, it would be worth taking an interest in the situation in Toronto. Mr. Chair, you are wondering about your responsibility. It's the airport authorities that issue the permits and, in my opinion, those authorities are under the committee's responsibility.

Obviously, I understand what you want to say about labour relations. I suggest that you at least make the people from the Toronto airport authority appear. If we want to understand the taxi drivers' case, perhaps we should ask questions of the owners and the drivers themselves.

But, let's make people from the Toronto airport authority appear to find out how they are proceeding and how these problems arose. Issuing permits is the responsibility of the airport authorities.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Merci.

I have Mr. Fast.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

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.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Thank you, Mr. Fast.

I do have three other people on the list who I would like to hear from before I make a decision on this.

Mr. Watson.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Are you asking for discussion on the point of order or on the motion?

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

It would be appropriate to be on either.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Okay. I do have a couple of thoughts. First of all, the fact that an arbitration meeting exists speaks to a labour dispute. My great concern in having a meeting like this is that trying to use the GTAA, if you will, through the peripheral issue of some provision regarding an investigation about licensing, which would presumably affect or take into account the conduct of the business and not necessarily the conduct of drivers, may affect the outcome of a labour dispute. Precisely such things should give the committee great pause about whether or not it is involved in an internal labour dispute.

It is not a licensing issue we are looking at. It's not a transport issue we're looking at. This is an internal labour dispute.

If there are issues to look at that are peripheral or otherwise, I think Mr. Fast's counsel is probably the wisest. Let the labour dispute itself be entirely resolved, and let's see if there are other issues to look at. This could end up in the courts at some point. I think we would be wise to steer clear of it for the time being. The motion itself may be premature.

I do have a concern with the ultimate aim of doing this. Do opposition members contemplate a change to licensing provisions? If so, let's speak now. I'd love to hear that.

The danger here exists in perhaps raising the profile of one side over another in a labour dispute. I hope the opposition doesn't want to involve the committee in picking sides in that dispute or to be seen to be picking sides in that dispute or offering a platform for any member to possibly pick sides in that dispute.

If this motion is actually accepted and we move forward with it, I think we will be moving in very dangerous territory. I would caution the committee against adopting the motion.

I would be interested to hear your ruling on whether it's in order. I don't believe it is in order.

That's all I need to say right now.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

I have Mr. McCallum.

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Most of the arguments we've just heard are about reasons to vote yes or no for the motion, not reasons as to why it is or is not in order.

I would argue a similar point to what Mr. Laframboise did. I am saying a similar thing. We are talking about the governance of airport authorities, and that is certainly a legitimate question for this committee to investigate. Whether one wants to do it is a different question on which one can vote, but I would argue that it is in order.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Byrne.