Transport Committee on June 6th, 2013

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

In the grand scheme of things, because there is a balanced force and the majority of them, whether they belong to the Christian Labour Association or to your organization, belong to something, there is enough work for everyone.

Is that what you're saying?

[Robert Blakely]

The short answer is yes.

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

Mr. Chair, this is really difficult. I've never had a situation where I couldn't see the person.

This meeting was originally supposed to be over at the Promenade. At that building we're able to see the person, right? I don't know why the meeting was moved here. It's really quite difficult to just have a telephone conference. Why did we move the meeting here?

It's neither here nor there, but....

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

The reason is that there was no place in Banff.

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

Oh, in Banff. It's the other side, then, and not us.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Yes.

Ms. Chow, please finish your time.

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

Mr. Miller or Mr. Perrin, are you suggesting that the federal government should tell different municipalities, different territories, different provincial governments what to do?

The Conservative Party, every time we talk about a national transit strategy, for example, tells me, “Well, we should just let them govern; let them do their own thing. We shouldn't tell the mayors or the premiers how to plan. We shouldn't dictate to them. They're a level of government, and it's really up to them to make their decisions, because they're duly elected”.

I've heard that from the minister many times, and I've heard that from the parliamentary secretary many times, that we really should let the municipalities govern and let the provinces govern.

Are you suggesting that we should go to each of the provinces across Canada—the different territories, different municipalities—look at the contracts, look at whether they're open or not or whatever it is you called it, and get involved in the fine details of how the contracting is done and how procurement is done?

Is that what you're suggesting?

[Harvey Miller]

Well, this committee is about government spending efficiencies. It would be our view and our request that if there are federal tax dollars being spent, those dollars would be spent in a fair way that would permit anyone who's qualified to bid on a project.

So it has to do with how the federal government is spending their dollars.

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

Are you suggesting that there should be a condition placed on the funding?

[Harvey Miller]

We believe that federal funding should be open...or that any funding that's provided has to have a condition, yes, that the money is spent in an open and fair way.

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

What other conditions do you think would be appropriate? Should we say that everything needs to be transparent, needs to be accountable?

Do you think the money should come up front or that funding should come after the money is spent, and then you judge on receipts and the government pays by the receipts?

[Harvey Miller]

I didn't understand your question.

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

There are two different ways in which funding is given. In the United States of America, funding is given at the beginning, once a project is determined, is approved. Then a legal agreement is signed. Then the funding gets transferred. Of course it's tracked, etc.

In Canada we do it the other way. We approve a project and then the money needs to be raised. Then it gets spent, and then the federal government would pay out according to the receipts they receive. So it's a different system.

Is that a system that you support?

[Harvey Miller]

The ask remains the same, I think. The federal government is spending money. Regardless of how they choose to implement, the request is the same—that the funding would have that condition, that it would be open.

It's taxpayers' money. It should be free and open to anyone to bid.

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

But if a municipality has already spent the money and the agreement was there, then the money would get paid out. There is really very little opportunity for any conditions to be placed, because the money has already been spent. It's a very different system, whereas in the United States they have the Buy American policy, where you have to hire American workers first, right? It's a very different style, and they have a lot of conditions.

In the past, the Canadian government, by and large, has been fairly open. These are the funds, and once the grant is approved, the money is spent. Then there are receipts and then the government pays out. There haven't been any so-called conditions being applied. I was just wondering whether there is a complete reversal now, such that we want conditions placed on the funding. It's a very different approach.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Does anybody want to comment on Ms. Chow's comment?

[Dennis Perrin]

I would submit, similar to what has already been said by Mr. Miller, that we wouldn't be terribly concerned at the end of the day as to how that money was spent, whether it's up front or a reimbursement of receipts after the fact, considering that the allotment has been granted.

To go back to your original question about allowing municipalities and provinces to self-govern, if you will, versus having more of a hands-on approach, at the end of the day micromanagement doesn't work particularly well in any realm, whether it's government, business, labour, or what have you. But I would also submit that when you look at the amount of federal funding that goes into these projects, the federal government obviously has a very significant interest and is a major stakeholder. I don't need to tell this committee that.

At the end of the day I'm less concerned about the mechanics and the types of conditions that you would place upon it. There certainly is a very keen interest that ought to be taken when you look at the amount of money that's coming out on this.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Simms, you have seven minutes.

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

Thank you, Chair.

Mr. Blakely, I'm going to start with you on an issue that you brought up. I want you to expand on it further for the sake of understanding fully how this operates. Following that, I'll give the gentlemen here in the room a chance to respond.

This is about project labour agreements. You mentioned several as examples. One of the examples I'd like to bring back is the one regarding the east coast, which is Nalcor. That is happening in a major project in Labrador.

If I have this correct, in a project labour agreement, there are certain carve-outs there for employees who are Inuit?

[Robert Blakely]

Carve-outs, no. They get priority placement.

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

Pardon the expression. That's what I meant. Sorry.

So they get placement. How does that happen in the case of a low bid? Does that arrangement go off the rails if you have a low bid sort of mechanism?

[Robert Blakely]

That's an interesting point. If you look at the owners who have specified local hire, you will see that they are generally looking at local hire or aboriginal hire because they're going to be in the location for a very long time.

If you say to the people who are building Muskrat Falls that you want them to hire as many local people as they can and provide training and give them experience, I think the hope from that owner is that during the operation of that power plant, which will take 50 years, there will be a local workforce to operate it, to do maintenance.

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

But these are permanent employees, correct? In the case of—

[Robert Blakely]

No. These are construction employees—

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

Okay.