Bill C-429 (Historical)

An Act to amend the Department of Public Works and Government Services Act (use of wood)

This enactment amends the Department of Public Works and Government Services Act to require the Minister, before soliciting bids, to give preference to the concept that promotes the use of wood while taking into account the cost and greenhouse gas emissions.

[Gérard Asselin, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

As you can see, Mr. Chairman, this is a bill containing only one paragraph, but it is worth its weight in gold. There is absolutely no point in having a 100-page bill if, ultimately, it can be summarized in a single paragraph. You will see, as I have, that this one paragraph in Bill C-129 is worth its weight in gold.

Mr. Chairman, I am proud of the fact that a majority of colleagues in the House voted in favour of this bill. That gives us an opportunity to review it in committee and hear today from witnesses who may or may not support it. Our hope is that when the Committee has completed its review of the bill, the vote will be a favourable one, which will give the House of Commons the opportunity to examine the bill at third reading.

Mr. Chairman, like my colleagues and myself, you will note that the bill has three objectives. The first objective of Bill C-429, an Act to Amend the Department of Public Works and Government Services Act (use of wood), is to help the forest industry. I would like to take the time to read that paragraph.

(1.1) Despite subsection (1), before soliciting bids for the construction, maintenance or repair of public works, federal immovables and federal real property, the Minister shall give preference to the concept that promotes the use of wood, while taking into account the cost and greenhouse gas emissions.

Mr. Chairman, as I was saying, although it is short, this bill is worth its weight in gold. It presents three goals, the first and foremost of which is to assist the forest industry, which is currently struggling, through greater use of wood when repairs are made to public works and federal buildings. Furthermore, Mr. Chairman, I imagine that if I asked all the members who are here today and support the idea of helping the forest industry, to raise their hands if they are in favour of passing this bill, I imagine that everyone would do that. If I asked that members raise their hands if they are in favour of the government meeting its greenhouse gas reduction targets, Mr. Chairman, I'm sure you would see that everyone would do that. The fact is that everyone is in favour.

When the government issues a call for tenders with respect to the construction, renovation or maintenance of federal buildings and allows entrepreneurs to use wood as a material, that is free competition. Companies that work with steel are not the only ones that can bid on a building project; there are also companies out there that prefer to work with wood. When there is competition, Mr. Chairman, like myself, you will see that, very often, the work that is carried out is of a very high quality and is performed at a better price.

In closing, Mr. Chairman, I hope that the Committee will fully consider the perspective of witnesses who will be presenting their views—because they are highly qualified to address this and have come a long way. They come from Ontario, British Columbia and all across Canada. The forest industry is not only a concern in Quebec, but all across Ontario, British Columbia and the four corners of the country.

I would like to turn it over now to Ms. Berube, who will make her opening statement.

[Gérard Asselin, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for inviting us and the other witnesses to appear before the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates. Mr. Labbé is not here yet, but he should join us soon as a witness.

Mr. Chairman, Bill C-429 has just completed another step—an important one. Today, we are appearing before you, before your staff and our colleagues from the House of Commons. I am accompanied today by a number of witnesses, including our researcher who is responsible for Bill 429, as well as Mr. Ouellet, the member of Parliament for Brome—Missisquoi and an architect. I would like to ask the people seated to my left to introduce themselves.

[Michael McSweeney, President and Chief Executive Officer, Cement Association of Canada]

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and members of the committee.

My name is Michael McSweeney and I am the president of the Cement Association of Canada.

You'll know most of the names of the cement companies around Canada. They're Cal Portland, Ciment Quebec, Essroc Italcementi, Federal White, Holcim Canada, Lafarge , Lehigh Hanson, and St. Marys Cement. As most of you will know, cement is the fine grey powder that, when mixed with crushed stone, sand, and water, makes concrete. Cement is the glue that holds that concrete together.

We want cement in Canada to be seen as a strategic commodity and a critical component to our nation's infrastructure. Cement really does underpin the construction industry across Canada as it is the key ingredient in concrete. Even though the economy has been slowly recovering, like most others, our industry has been significantly impacted by the global economic recession, with reduced demand for cement and concrete across Canada and the United States, which is our primary export market. For the first time in decades our industry has experienced layoffs, prolonged shutdowns, both of which affect all Canadians and the ability to complete infrastructure projects.

Our time is short here today, so without a doubt the two issues I want to talk about are the economy and the environment. With respect to measures to support the recovering economy, we do applaud the government and all members of Parliament for introducing stimulus measures that are renewing Canadian infrastructure. We recognize the challenges created in implementing the stimulus package and accelerating investments and we believe there is a need to encourage government at all levels to maintain the pace of infrastructure investment and help ease the infrastructure deficit, which we all know is huge across this country.

When it comes to the issue of infrastructure spending in Canada, we feel that the debate has largely been focused on how fast the money gets spent or the deadline for the money being spent, but we urge parliamentarians to play more of a role in how well taxpayer dollars are spent.

Our primary message is this. Whether using federal government money or partnering with provinces and municipalities, we're asking you to focus on the concept of total cost of ownership. The motto should never be, “The lowest cost wins”; the motto should be, “Build it once, build it right, build it to last”. In this way, we will be ensuring that new projects contribute to achieving Canada's sustainable development objectives.

In order to be doing this, the government needs to be promoting issues like enhanced energy efficiency, project life-cycle costing, and reducing GHGs. And if I might, I will make a plug for one of our industry solutions, Portland limestone cement, which has been approved by the CSA and is about to be referenced in the National Building Code. We believe the federal government should mandate the use of this new and equivalent cement as a substitute for general use cement. In so doing, the federal government can reduce its carbon footprint by up to 10%.

On top of this economic crisis, our country and indeed the cement manufacturing sector are facing a patchwork of environmental regimes, ranging from carbon taxes in two provinces to potential cap-and-trade programs that are under development in three other provinces across Canada, and hopefully a federal regime on the horizon soon.

I focus a great deal of my emphasis today on the environment and the economy because they are inextricably linked and have a major impact on the cement industry's competitiveness. This is something this committee should be concerned with. As an industry that's energy intensive and trade exposed, it's important that governments design policies that help manufacturers like the cement industry maintain and advance our competitive strategy while at the same time enabling us to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

In designing regulations, the government should align Canada's climate change efforts with those of the United States on such issues as price signals, alignment, mid- and long-term climate objectives, and avoiding disruption of cross-border trade and border adjustments.

Finally, as you know, tomorrow there is a private member's bill, Bill C-429, that is seeking to require the Department of Public Works and Government Services to favour one construction material over others in the construction, maintenance, or repair of public works. We believe it's neither good nor acceptable public policy for Canadian governments to promote one building material over another building material by excluding alternative, viable, and competing Canadian materials from Canadian construction markets. We strongly believe that all construction materials should operate on a level playing field and in a fair, competitive, and open economic environment.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I look forward to any questions you might have.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

The chair sees that it's unanimous.

The second thing is that we are running up against a timeline on Bill C-429. I have asked the clerk to be ready for clause-by-clause at the end of Thursday, so in the event that we do move to clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-429 on Thursday—which is by no means certain—we'll be ready to proceed. Therefore, members need to have any amendments they wish to make prepared for the end of Thursday.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Thank you, Mr. Elcock.

Thank you, Mr. Holder.

Before I adjourn, I want to thank the two witnesses on behalf of the committee for their testimony. We appreciate their help.

Also, before I adjourn, I need approval of a budget of $13,575 for Bill C-429, for witnesses. Could I have a mover?

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

Thank you.

We thank you again for coming to our committee. We appreciate your testimony every time you come before us. There are always things for us to learn and areas that we know will occupy our time and our discussions at forthcoming committees. Thank you so much. We now want to invite you, or free you up, to leave. We do appreciate your attendance.

Committee members, we do have just a little bit of a tentative schedule. Before the chair left, he and I talked over the possibilities for the week we come back.

I think it's important for you to know that on the nineteenth we will not discuss Bill C-429, because Mr. Asselin cannot be here until the twenty-first. On the twenty-first, we will plan for it to be the first day of hearings on Bill C-429. The first hour will be given to the private member who is proposing the bill, as well as any of his proponents for the bill, if he wants to bring additional business people or whomever for the discussions.

For the second hour, what we are suggesting is that if every party wants to propose two different witnesses as possibilities for that second hour, we will then begin this discussion. Then, at the end of that meeting, we can determine as committee members if we want to extend the hearings or if we've heard enough. That seems to me to maybe be a way in which we can begin the process.

In terms of the meeting of the nineteenth, right now we have two different options that we've conceived. One is having Correctional Services here and hearing from them. We did hear from the PBO on theirs, but they are the last witness we need for the one study. The other is to get a high-level briefing on G-8 and G-20. It seems like committee members are excited in regard to getting onto that. There is a possibility that if Correctional Services are not available we could maybe get a high-level briefing on G-8 and G-20 from PCO or some other organization, if there's a willingness.

Again, by tomorrow we do need suggestions from the parties with regard to witnesses for Bill C-429. We'll ask the clerk to inform Mr. Asselin that we expect to do that on the twenty-first, to just confirm it with him, and then, I guess, work with his colleagues in the Bloc to bring witnesses who are in support of his bill, for that first hour.

[Diane Bourgeois, Bloc, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

I would say that Mr. Warkentin has given his opinion, and so have I. I have made it clear to everyone that right now witnesses are making arrangements to be heard. I think it is too soon to say that we are going to spend two hours, two meetings or four hours on this.

First, can we have a list of witnesses? Second, based on the wink Mr. Warkentin gave earlier, I am going to meet with him to explain clearly and thoroughly the implications of our approach on Bill C-429. Even though it is just a paragraph or a sentence, it is critical to the recognition of Quebec's needs and the expression of those needs. I am prepared to meet with Mr. Warkentin to come up with a motion we are both satisfied with.

[Diane Bourgeois, Bloc, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

Mr. Chair, I ask that Mr. Warkentin withdraw his motion.

First of all, it shows a total lack of respect for parliamentarians. Bill C-429 is actually a private member's bill, and nowhere in his motion does he mention the person who introduced Bill C-429 in the House. I think that the member who sponsored Bill C-429 should at least be one of the witnesses we hear from.

Secondly, the motion includes groups that were on the list that our clerk sent to us. As far as I can tell, Mr. Warkentin's motion does not include any of the names of the witnesses proposed by the Bloc Québécois. I find that pretty disrespectful towards our party, given that Bill C-429 was put forward by the Bloc Québécois. If Mr. Warkentin says that it was an oversight, that he forgot to add those things to his motion and that he is prepared to amend it, I would accept that he not withdraw his motion. As it stands now, it shows a complete and total lack of respect for us.

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

Mr. Chair, in terms of Bill C-429, I know that there's been a lot of interest expressed from a number of different stakeholders. We have compiled a list of the folks we think are important to have as witnesses. Obviously, I think it's important that we as a committee come to an agreement as to how to move forward, but I think it's important that we have this discussion as to how we want this to work.

Today is the day that we need to do this because Tuesday and Thursday of the week we return, I expect we will be having hearings, so I do propose this motion. I'm amenable to changes, to include witnesses that people feel are essential, but clearly I think it's important that we do give a say to people.

As you know, there have been dozens and dozens of people who have contacted all of our offices in an effort to get the attention of this committee.

Forestry Industry

[Robert Bouchard, Bloc, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have the pleasure to present a petition signed by several dozen people who support Bill C-429, An Act to amend the Department of Public Works and Government Services Act (use of wood).

This bill was introduced on June 18, 2009, and it would help thousands of workers, businesses, families and communities affected by the forestry crisis in regions where forestry companies are located.

The bill sends a very clear message to the Government of Canada and to the public. We must pass this bill in order to increase domestic demand for softwood lumber in Quebec and Canada, and to reduce dependency on softwood lumber exports to the United States.

I am pleased to present this petition signed by several dozen people who support Bill C-429, calling on the federal government to give preference to the use of wood in renovating or constructing federal buildings. I am honoured to present this petition in support of Bill C-429.

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

I just want to table two different motions, one with regard to the witness list for Bill C-429. I think it's important that we start to establish that. Maybe at our next meeting we could take some time to handle that.

Use of Wood in Federal Buildings

[Yvon Lévesque, Bloc, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition here today signed by several hundred citizens of Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou who are calling on the House of Commons to quickly pass Bill C-429.

The petitioners believe that this bill sends a clear message to the Government of Canada and to the public about the many opportunities afforded by wood technology and the resources we have in Quebec and Canada, in addition to stimulating wood consumption. The petitioners are pointing out that passing such a bill would serve to help thousands of workers, businesses, families and communities affected by the forestry crisis and the forest itself, which needs to be cleaned up as soon as possible because of numerous forest fires.

In closing, I would like to say that I fully support the petitioners' initiative and I hope this government will consider it.

[Robert Bouchard, Bloc, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, today I am pleased to present two petitions on the same subject signed by hundreds of people from my region and several other Quebec regions who are asking the House of Commons to ensure swift passage of Bill C-429 concerning the use of wood in the construction and renovation of federal government buildings.

The petitioners are asking the government to send a very clear message to the people and to government about considering wood as an option and a solution in construction projects. The petitioners want the bill to pass to meet the needs of thousands of workers, families and communities.

[Gérard Asselin, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, today I have the pleasure of presenting a second petition signed by several hundred residents of Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean and the North Shore who are asking the House of Commons to ensure swift passage of Bill C-429 to amend the Department of Public Works and Government Services Act with respect to using wood in federal buildings.

Canada Labour Code

[Robert Vincent, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in this debate on Bill C-386 introduced by my colleague from Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel who, on behalf of his political party, is trying for the umpteenth time to put an end to the use of replacement workers in Canada and Quebec.

While Quebec legislated on this a long time ago, workers governed by the Canada Labour Code working in Quebec are not covered by Quebec's Bill 45, passed during the first mandate of the late René Lévesque. This Conservative government is once again ignoring one of the main demands with respect to how the whole area of work relations is governed.

Why is anti-strikebreaking, or anti-scab, legislation necessary? For one thing, the Bloc Québécois would like all workers in Quebec, whether governed by the Quebec Labour Code or the Canada Labour Code, to have the same rights. The Conservative government's stubbornness is creating two distinct classes of workers in Quebec. The Bloc Québécois believes that the best way of recognizing the outstanding contribution of all these men and women who are helping build the Quebec society on a day-to-day basis is to show genuine respect for their rights, starting by banning the use of replacement workers during strikes or lockouts.

Anti-scab legislation would ensure that workers governed by federal legislation enjoy balanced bargaining power, and would keep tension on the picket lines to a minimum. That is the basic objective of Bill C-386, which would prohibit the hiring of replacement workers.

At this point, I would like to list what the Conservative government has done in response to the many expectations of the labour movement. It is a very short list. How much has the Conservative government given to help the unemployed, the tens of thousands of workers who have lost their job in the forestry sector? Peanuts, compared to the billions of dollars it has showered on Ontario to help auto workers. What has the Conservative government done to eliminate the two-week waiting period for people who become unemployed? Nothing.

Workers who lose their jobs go through stress and anxiety. Their income is cut off at the source. Meanwhile, they are expected to wait patiently for a Service Canada official to examine their file, and often they have to endure processing delays, not to mention the 1-800 telephone line, which is insane. In addition to waiting for an answer, the poor jobless people have to put up with this irresponsible treatment.

I will continue with my list, because since I came to the House of Commons in 2004, my social priorities have always included the unemployed and older workers. This government is still refusing to support our proposal to increase the maximum EI benefit period for workers with a serious illness from 15 to 50 weeks. It is currently 15 weeks, as if someone's cancer could be treated in 15 weeks.

I could pull out the list of measures we have called for in recent years and the many bills we have introduced to help our workers. The list of no's from ministers and members is as long as our list of requests. By the way, the government voted against Bill C-429, which would have promoted the use of wood in the construction of federal buildings and would have helped workers in Quebec. But no, the government ignored our workers again. That was another trademark vote by the Conservatives.

I would like to remind hon. members once again of one of the most anti-worker statements ever heard here in the House. On December 3, 2009, the member for Souris—Moose Mountain said this:

I do not see anything in the bill's proposed provision that would help boost Canada's ability to create jobs and to be more competitive in today's economy. What I do see in the bill is a recipe for instability and uncertainty in Canadian labour relations.

What an explanation. According to him, having workers out on the street for months or years is what will stimulate employment, as will the uncertainty of the workers who do not have sufficient power to assert their legitimate rights. What is the government doing about the uncertainty experienced by the many families of strikers affected by these lasting disputes? Nothing, nothing and more nothing. It prefers to build lakes—that is a good one—for journalists and delegates at the G8. In their right-wing vocabulary, the Conservatives call this “stimulating the economy”. I call it keeping families in poverty.

Let us get back to the Conservative government's sad record.

Here is a clear example of that record. During the CN conflict, the Conservative government passed special legislation with respect to Canadian National. The latter had been training its managers and a large group of non-unionized employees for several months in order to maintain service. In the case of CN, they were maintaining over 60% of service. However, Canadian Pacific, which has two parallel lines across Canada—one used by CN and the other by CP—could have covered the other 40% that CN claimed it could not. They could also have resorted to trucking, as well as the short lines in the regions, to serve the Canadian public.

For the Montreal region, for example, AMT had signed an agreement for continuous passenger service and CN would have covered not just 100%, but 120% of the service provided to its clients.

Given all these responsibilities and possibilities, I wonder why the Conservatives thought there was a crisis and why was there a need for additional service? We have to allow negotiations between the parties to continue in good faith and force them to agree on a collective agreement, and not vote on a special law to force workers back to work.

I would also point out to my hon. colleagues that CN is a private corporation, which is why I do not understand why the government became involved in the dispute. Indeed, when it comes to private corporations, we believe that they are in a position to negotiate with workers themselves and capable of doing so, but they do not, nor do they have to. All they have to do is call up the government and say that they are going on strike and will not be able to provide the service. Since it is a transportation service, it is very important. What did the government do? It passed special legislation to force the workers back to work. They forget about negotiating; they make them work and everything goes back to what it was before, without any thought given to negotiating with the workers. I find that unreasonable on the government's part. It is always trying to denigrate workers. Yet our workers form the foundation of the Canadian and Quebec economy. And they are the first people the government tries to steal from.

We saw it again with the $57 billion that the government stole from workers. It is not enough to tax them or to take taxes off at the source, it always wants a little bit more. As for employers, their taxes have been cut. It is not employers that are producing what Canada needs to survive. It comes from the taxes paid by workers.

I could also talk about the theft from the employment insurance fund surplus. My mother always told me that when you take something that is not yours, it is stealing. When they dipped into the employment insurance fund that was not theirs, it was stealing. I will not contradict my mother here today. If she said it, it is because it is true. Nothing will change my mind.

Back when the Conservatives were in opposition, they constantly condemned the Liberals' practice of pillaging the employment insurance fund. Now, with Bill C-9, they are about to keep doing the same thing. How? By wiping the slate clean, as they say. The Conservatives are telling workers and employers, the people to whom that money belongs, that they should forget about recuperating the $57 billion that the government siphoned off over the years.

The Prime Minister himself once recognized that employment insurance fund money was misappropriated to pay down the deficit. He promised workers that he would repay the $57 billion that Ottawa diverted. Now he is breaking that promise.

The proposed new employment insurance measures are particularly sickening because the Conservatives are trying to hide them among the dozens of other initiatives in Bill C-9. Unfortunately, these kinds of anti-democratic manoeuvres have become par for the course with the Conservative government.

With the end of the parliamentary session just days away, on behalf of unionized workers subject to the Canada Labour Code, and on behalf of the Bloc Québécois, we urge the Conservative ministers and members to say yes to anti-scab legislation.