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.
5:05 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Larry Miller
This is not a point of order on this topic. If you want to have a discussion about this afterwards, Ms. Chow, absolutely.
5:05 p.m.
NDP
Olivia Chow NDP Trinity—Spadina, ON
No. It is a point of order because you mentioned that Mr. Sullivan—
5:05 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Larry Miller
It's been five minutes since I brought up what Mr. Sullivan said.
5:05 p.m.
NDP
Olivia Chow NDP Trinity—Spadina, ON
I believed you were trying to be fair. That's why I didn't challenge it immediately.
Then I asked Mr. Sullivan if he had submitted some names. He then showed me the list of the names he had submitted. I was told most of these people haven't been called.
If that is the case, whereas Merit has been here three times, the Christian Labour Association has been here twice.... This is the second time now.
I wasn't going to talk about it or raise it until this came up. I thought he hadn't submitted the names, or I thought they'd been called. I was told that Mr. Sullivan submitted a list of names, and these people have not been called. I want to set the record straight.
5:05 p.m.
NDP
Olivia Chow NDP Trinity—Spadina, ON
I wasn't going to raise it, but you did. There was this discussion. I want to be very clear—
5:10 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Larry Miller
I know there was a large number, whether they were the ones that Mr.Sullivan submitted or not is irrelevant. We invited a number. I will check it out and maybe none of his were. I don't know.
Mr. Poilievre, continue.
5:10 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Nepean—Carleton, ON
Mr. Sullivan suggested that you want to block building trades from competing. Do you want to block building trades?
5:10 p.m.
Executive Director, Merit Contractors Association
No, we don't. In fact, what we are asking is quite simple. We would like a fair playing field and that the rules and the conditions of the tenders be the same for everyone.
5:10 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Nepean—Carleton, ON
You're happy to compete with building trades and any other organization on a level playing field.
5:10 p.m.
Executive Director, Merit Contractors Association
That's all. That's what we've asked for.
5:10 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Nepean—Carleton, ON
Okay.
Do you want to institute a ban on all unionized companies from competing for work in a given municipality?
5:10 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Nepean—Carleton, ON
I don't think anybody wants that.
In fact, if anyone ever tried to impose such a thing there would be unanimous opposition to it. This is why I find it hard to understand the absence of unanimity, in opposition to the inverse, which is to ban union-free and alternate union competitors.
Mr. Sullivan then said that this is really free enterprise and that it's the owner who is making this decision.
Actually, the owner of the infrastructure in this case is a municipality, and the municipalities have decided against these labour monopolies. They've been imposed by a provincial regime. It is anything but parallel to a free market system where an owner would choose his or her procurement process.
Is that not so?
5:10 p.m.
Executive Director, Merit Contractors Association
I'm sorry, I didn't quite hear that.
5:10 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Nepean—Carleton, ON
The owner of the infrastructure, in the case, for example, of Ontario, is the municipality. The province has imposed rules on the municipality banning competition for infrastructure in that municipality. The municipality has not made the decision in that case then to ban competition; it is the province.