Transport Committee on June 6th, 2013

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

Sorry. Is that the case, Mr. Perrin?

[Dennis Perrin]

In the province of Alberta, potentially Saskatchewan, but definitely not in Manitoba.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

I think my time is up. Is that right?

[Robert Blakely]

If I could conclude, Mr. Miller told you about his lawsuit. We have defended the lawsuit. It is being vigorously opposed. I think something is supposed to happen this month, as the matter progresses. One day the Supreme Court of Canada will give us its verdict of whether project labour agreements create forced ideological conformity with the union or not.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Thank you.

Just for the record, I wanted to make sure we're clear that when Mr. Blakely is referring to Mr. Miller, he means Mr. Harvey Miller and not the chair.

[Robert Blakely]

Yes, sir, that is exactly correct.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Mr. Poilievre, you have seven minutes.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Miller.

Mr. Blakely, I want to clarify one mistake in your presentation. No one here is suggesting that bidding should move to exclusively lowest price criteria. Everyone here agrees that quality and qualifications are essential parts of the best value calculation. We are not focused on that. The study has not examined that question because there's unanimity, as far as I can tell, that qualitative matters must be taken into consideration in an open competition.

The question we're debating is whether or not certain contractors and their employees should be excluded simply because of their status as union-free workers or employers.

I haven't yet heard a single witness who is prepared to defend the Province of Ontario's decision to impose labour monopolies in the four jurisdictions you've mentioned across Ontario. The closest we've heard to a defence was your own, when you said it's not a big deal because it's only four jurisdictions. Actually, one of them is Toronto; another is Hamilton. We're starting to deal with very large numbers of taxpayers and very big infrastructure projects. If, as these municipalities report, the costs inflate by as much as 40% as a result of these forced labour monopolies, then it is a very big deal.

Are you of the position that the Government of Ontario should continue to impose these labour monopolies in jurisdictions across the province?

[Robert Blakely]

Firstly, what you're calling a labour monopoly is a certificate awarded by the Ontario Labour Relations Board, which certifies an employer for a unit of employees. There aren't one or two of these. There are thousands, literally tens of thousands of them. They certify grocery stores. They certify municipalities for their own employees. They certify hospitals. They certify nurses. They certify a host of people under the Labour Relations Act.

The labour monopoly does not come from the operation of the Ontario government. The Ontario government does not say you get to have a monopoly.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

Actually—

[Robert Blakely]

They give a right to bargain to the union.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

Wait a second, here.

[Robert Blakely]

In this case the union is.... Under the designation system in the Province of Ontario, the employer is represented by the employer bargaining agency. The employer bargaining agency comes up with a collective agreement. The collective agreement has a clause.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

Chair, that was just a very long way of saying the Ontario government does in fact impose a labour monopoly. What you've just said is that it is the Ontario government's certification process that requires that all workers on projects in given municipalities must be members of a specified union. That is a labour monopoly, and it is imposed by the Ontario government, even at the opposition of the local municipalities in question.

Hamilton, for example, opposed the imposition by a very small number of workers of a jurisdiction-wide certification, yet it is stuck with that certification. It says that monopoly will cost 20% to 40% on its projects.

Are you in support of the practice that led to this labour monopoly in Hamilton?

[Robert Blakely]

First of all, it's not a labour monopoly. Second of all, certification, whether it's in Hamilton, or Toronto, or Kalamazoo, gives the union certain rights that flow from the Labour Relations Act. If one of those rights is the right to bargain with the employer, they can then make a deal. The deal governs their relationship. It is a matter of contract.

If you and I pooled our money and started Pierre and Bob's Balloon Company, and we went to the people who manufacture balloons and said, we will give you x amount of dollars in exchange for a right to be the only people who sell your balloons in Canada, it might give us a monopoly, but it is a monopoly we're entitled to get as a matter of contract, and should be protected by Canadian law.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

Okay. Let me just take your analogy further.

Imagine the City of Hamilton needed balloons. Imagine, then, our balloon company was able to impose a legal monopoly on them so that they could buy balloons from nobody else.

That is precisely what has been imposed on Hamiltonian taxpayers by the system that you took a long time to describe. That would make for very expensive balloons. I'm afraid that for taxpayers the balloon has burst. They can't afford to pay any more.

Let me quote from Peter Shawn Taylor, the editor-at-large of Maclean's magazine:

The same union pulled the same trick on Hamilton in 2005: two workers

—two—

signed carpenters’ union cards and were thus able to impose a union agreement on the entire city forever. As a result, the pool of eligible bidders for construction contracts in Hamilton was reduced by over 90 per cent. Of the 260 firms that had previously bid on city jobs, city staff calculated that only 17 were affiliated with the carpenters union.

In other words, 90% of competition was banned, and every single worker in Hamilton who wanted to do government work in the carpentry field had to be part of this union because two people chose it.

Do you really believe that's a fair system of labour relations?

[Robert Blakely]

It is the Canadian system that has been extant since P.C.—

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

It's the Ontario system.

[Robert Blakely]

No, it's the Canadian system that has been extant since—

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

This is Ontario law, sir.

[Robert Blakely]

It is the Canadian system that has been extant since P.C. 1003 was enacted in the year 1944.

It is a system that has been perpetuated through various Ontario labour relations acts up to the present.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

Okay. I still haven't heard a defence of any of this, other than a very long explanation of how the Government of Ontario actually imposes this labour monopoly.

I'll turn to the other witnesses here.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

You have time for one quick question.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

All right.

To the contractors, are your members prepared to engage in open competition, on a best-value basis, for infrastructure business?

[Clyde Sigurdson, Treasurer, Merit Contractors Association, and President, Ken Palson Enterprises Ltd.]

Yes. We are prepared to openly bid, to be previously qualified, to show the standards, whatever needs to be done, as long as we can bid in a fair and open way that doesn't force our members to change to a union affiliation.