Evidence of meeting #76 for Transport, Infrastructure and Communities in the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was union.
A video is available from Parliament.
5:10 p.m.
Executive Director, Merit Contractors Association
Yes, I would see it that way.
We're talking about who is responsible for policy that governs how infrastructure contracts are tendered. Is that what you're asking?
5:10 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Nepean—Carleton, ON
Yes. That's right.
I know your situation is different in Manitoba.
5:10 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Nepean—Carleton, ON
I was referring to the Ontario situation.
What you're really looking for is a free market for competition, to determine who can deliver best value to the taxpayers on public projects that are federally funded.
5:10 p.m.
NDP
Robert Aubin NDP Trois-Rivières, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I will share my time with Mr. Sullivan.
Let's go back to the idea of competition. Correct me if I am wrong, but I get the impression that two things are being confused. There seems to be an assumption that there is a direct link between whether the tendering process is open or closed and whether there is competition or not. In other words, if the process is closed, the competition will magically disappear.
In addition, a number of witnesses have told us that that makes prices go up, by 2% to 40%, which may well create problems with meeting deadlines. However, those are still very vague estimates.
Can you back up your statements with studies, empirical data that can be extrapolated to the whole country and that would allow us to compare the level of competition in the two processes? If not, the real issue is still a moral issue and we will come back to it. However, do we have empirical data to back that up?
The question goes to everyone.
5:15 p.m.
Director, Prairies, Christian Labour Association of Canada
We would submit that, first of all, closed bidding doesn't entirely eliminate competition. It drastically reduces it, so it's not completely done away with.
In these different models that we've been looking at—the Manitoba situation today, and the Ontario situations you've looked at previously—the end result is that you substantially reduce the competition from what it could be to what it actually is.
5:15 p.m.
NDP
Robert Aubin NDP Trois-Rivières, QC
Could you back that up with data? You are saying that it drastically reduces competition, but by how much? What studies are you basing your statement on?
5:15 p.m.
Director, Prairies, Christian Labour Association of Canada
From my understanding, some of the witnesses you've already heard from at this point have presented a lot of that empirical data. I know that there have been studies that were brought forward by Cardus, a think tank organization. From what I've observed of these proceedings, there already has been evidence that has been brought forward.
5:15 p.m.
NDP
Mike Sullivan NDP York South—Weston, ON
One of the suggestions is concerning Manitoba, and I want to draw attention to a letter we all received this morning from the Manitoba Building and Construction Trades Council, which suggests the assertion that the Manitoba work is somehow closed flies in the face of the facts. It says that in fact:
Kiewit Contractors, a CLAC affiliated contractor, was a successful bidder on, and received from Manitoba Hydro a contract to do work, at the Wuskwatim Generating Station. Also, Kiewit Infrastructure is currently working on the Pointe du Bois Spillway Replacement Project for Manitoba Hydro.
So how is it that it's closed if those contractors are getting the work? It doesn't actually jive.
5:15 p.m.
Director, Prairies, Christian Labour Association of Canada
Yes, thank you. I'm glad I'm able to speak to that matter.
The truth is that Kiewit Infrastructure is not a CLAC contractor in the province of Manitoba. There is no union affiliation between CLAC and Kiewit Infrastructure Manitoba. There's no bargaining certificate in place. There is no binding collective agreement in place either. In fact, on this particular project, Kiewit is signatory to those building trades unions for the specific project because they have to be. The terms and conditions as outlined in that agreement for that project bind them to that. Otherwise they would not have been able to be a part of it.
5:15 p.m.
NDP
Mike Sullivan NDP York South—Weston, ON
But my point is that they have not been limited from bidding.
Your assertion all the way along is that competition is limited because contractors who are affiliated with CLAC can't bid. In fact, that's not the case, Kiewit actually bid and got the contracts, even though they aren't normally a contractor that is affiliated with the building trades, because they signed building trades agreements.
It comes back to the whole notion of collective agreements versus.... I guess what we're resisting on this side is the notion that we should allow the federal government to force open, to void, collective agreements that have been duly signed between provinces—as in Manitoba—and unions, or in the case of cities in Ontario, between Toronto and unions, or between Hamilton and unions, or between Kitchener and unions.
Those collective agreements are in place, and what you folks are suggesting is that those agreements should be voided if there's federal money, and that those agreements should just cease to exist because those agreements are what determines the work relationship between organized labour and those municipalities or provinces.
5:15 p.m.
Director, Prairies, Christian Labour Association of Canada
With the Manitoba situation specifically, I'll go back to saying that Kiewit is not a CLAC contractor in Manitoba. It is not fair to say that by and large they are a CLAC contractor. They are in specific areas. They have building trades affiliations in other areas. So there's probably pretty equal weighting at the end of the day.
To suggest that collective agreements ought to be made null and void, it's interesting that in the Manitoba situation, this is not something that is provincially imposed. It comes through no natural order of law, if you will. It's not binding, as in the situation in Ontario with a certificate from the Ontario Labour Relations Board.
What you have before you is an example of essentially a voluntary recognition agreement that exists between, in this case, Manitoba Hydro and these building trades unions. What we're simply saying is that you ought to look at a different model, the model that I talked about a bit earlier with the managed open site, where you can have project labour terms and conditions but there is opportunity for everybody to come to the table, the building trades, the alternative union movement of which CLAC is a part, along with many others and the non-union folks Mr. Miller represents.
5:20 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Larry Miller
Thank you very much. Your time has expired.
That letter, Mr. Sullivan, you referred to is from Mr. David Yallits?
5:20 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Larry Miller
Yes. Just for the record, he declined to appear, so....
With that, Mr. Blakely, Mr. Perrin, Mr. Miller, and Mr. Sigurdson, thank you very much for being here today.
5:20 p.m.
Conservative
5:20 p.m.
NDP
Mike Sullivan NDP York South—Weston, ON
The motion is that the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities conduct a study on the pension situation at Canada Post.
5:20 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Larry Miller
That's a different motion from the one we have.
Is that a notice of motion?
5:20 p.m.
Conservative