Bill C-227 (Historical)

An Act to amend the Department of Public Works and Government Services Act (community benefit)

This enactment amends the Department of Public Works and Government Services Act to provide the Minister with the authority to require an assessment of the benefits that a community derives from a construction, maintenance or repair project.

Department of Public Works and Government Services Act

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-322, An Act to amend the Department of Public Works and Government Services Act (community benefit).

Mr. Speaker, this will complete the trifecta, and this is important. As Bill C-227, it was previously in Parliament, and it was designed to provide community benefits for infrastructure projects.

Community benefits go to helping employment, offsetting environmental degradation, and so forth, on projects that are put through by public works, for example, the Gordie Howe Bridge, which I have been fighting for. My first public meeting on that was in 1998. We finally got some community benefits to help Sandwich Town, but unfortunately it is not in legislation. As I mentioned, Bill C-227 was passed in the chamber but was held up in the Senate. I would suggest this is a good opportunity to restore that work and provide community benefits for infrastructure projects, so that we can actually help.

Often, there is money that goes toward employment for youth, for issues related to the environment and also specific regional things.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

Pensions

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the second petition highlights that before the 2015 federal election, Canadians were clearly promised, in writing, that defined benefit plans that had already been paid for by the employers and pensioners would not be retroactively changed to targeted benefit plans.

Bill C-27, tabled by the finance minister, would precisely permit this change, therefore jeopardizing the retired income security of Canadians who have negotiated defined benefit plans as a form of deferred wages. Therefore, the petitioners are calling on the Government of Canada to withdraw Bill C-27 to amend the Pensions Benefits Standards Act.

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

I was going to say that Mr. Badawey isn't playing with a full deck here. In fact, I think you are actually working off some old notes here, Vance, because the NDP-1 that you are referring to here isn't the same as the NDP-1 that was passed out.

NDP-1, I think, was something Mr. Aubin looked at or brought forward when it was Bill C-227, when it said “benefit means a social, economic or environmental benefit”. If Mr. Aubin had that note from the first one and was to present that as an amendment, I think he would find that it would be adopted.

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

That's 0-2. I'll try to be more convincing, but since I've already presented these amendments, I won't believe in miracles.

We are proposing that, to be more specific, clause 1 be amended by adding the following after line 17:

(2.01) The Minister shall, before awarding a contract for the construction, maintenance or repair of public works, federal real property or federal immovables, require bidders on the proposal to provide information on the measures considered to:

Then, it describes what those measures would be:

(a) reduce the environmental impact of the work, property or immovable; (b) ensure respect for the biological diversity and ecological integrity of the surrounding ecosystems and contribute to their maintenance; and (c) ensure that the work, property or immovable is adapted to the effects of climate change.

During the study of Bill C-227, the committee wisely insisted that environmental issues be added to the elements it had to consider. That is exactly what NDP-3 is about.

In my opinion, the importance we are placing on the milieu, the environment and climate change is better defined by this addition than by clause 1 of Bill C-344.

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I will speak briefly about each of the amendments, since the ones I'm presenting are basically the same as those presented in the context of Bill C-227 and have been discussed. Since a new wording of this bill has been presented, I'd be out of my mind if I didn't try to push it a little further.

We all know that Bill C-344 is largely inspired by a similar Ontario bill. Although it is inspired by it, it stops very shortly after the starting point.

In proposing these amendments, I am trying to give a little more importance to this bill, which contains four or five clauses and is interesting in spirit, but which gives the minister the power to require an assessment of the local benefits without making him do so. That seems a little contradictory to me.

NDP amendment 1 proposes adding this paragraph to clause 1:

(1.1) Before awarding a contract for the construction, maintenance or repair of public works, federal real property or federal immovables, the Minister shall consult the public in order to assess the local need for community benefits.

Remember that the bill only deals with buildings that are financed or belong to the federal government. If we want to promote local benefits, the least we can do is go to the communities and ask them what their needs are, which could be filled by this bill once it's passed. This could be taken into account in a possible call for tenders.

I'll stop there.

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Welcome, Mr. Sangha.

Thank you for being here with us and for introducing Bill C-344, which, for the most part, is the old C-227. You do not need me to tell you that this is largely inspired by a similar bill in the Ontario legislature. I have to confess that I have a soft spot for bills that have only a few clauses and one main idea, bills that try to go right to the point.

In that spirit, may I ask you for some clarification about proposed paragraph 20.1(2)? It reads: “The Minister may, before awarding a contract for the construction, maintenance or repair of public works…”

Why do you not feel the need to say “the Minister shall…”? If the Minister “may”, he also may not, in which case, the entire spirit of the bill and all the results you are hoping for will never come to pass.

[Ramesh Sangha, Liberal, Brampton Centre, ON]

Madam Chair, it's my pleasure to come before the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities. Thank you very much for giving me this opportunity.

My private member's bill, Bill C-344, is an act to amend section 20 of the Department of Public Works and Government Services Act to introduce community benefits. This committee has already done an extensive study on a similar bill, Bill C-227, which could not go through due to administrative reasons, as the chair has already mentioned. You conducted your study on Bill C-227 and suggested a few amendments. Now I am here with my private member's bill, Bill C-344, with your suggested amendments.

Let me congratulate you all for the great work done on the previous bill, Bill C-227.

Community benefit agreements, CBAs, are tangible socio-economic opportunities for neighbourhoods, local communities, and the environmental benefits that result from federal government projects across Canada. This includes local job creation, apprenticeships, education, and affordable housing. By giving more power to the minister of public services and procurement, Bill C-344 would make sure that the minister plays a leadership role towards the betterment of communities. This bill would empower the minister to ultimately create a platform to minimize delays and produce flexibility for communities' infrastructure development.

CBAs would require bidders on the proposal to provide information on the community benefits that the project would provide. CBAs would enable the minister to formulate agreements between developers and local community groups. CBAs would create a foundation to encourage local communities to form partnerships with developers and address local challenges.

My private member's bill, Bill C-344, would require the minister to report back to Parliament every year on what community benefits have been enacted.

We notice that the federal investment funds are making significant improvements in all the ridings across Canada, even in Brampton. We have federal funds of approximately $95 million for Züm bus rapid transit and $69 million for stormwater management infrastructure for the Peel region. Similarly, every riding across Canada is getting funding for federal projects. It is obvious that if CBAs were tied to these federal investments, communities would thrive.

Bill C-344 would allow for comprehensive consultation with communities across Canada, consequently strengthening the local community infrastructure for the residents. Moreover, various business groups and organizations support the idea of community benefit agreements. The Toronto board of trade, the Vancouver board of trade, and the Montreal board of trade have already recognized community benefit agreements as a strong economic policy and an optimal way to confront youth unemployment.

Furthermore, a joint report from Mowat Centre and the Atkinson Foundation found that community benefit agreements have the ability to adopt a better environment for impoverished areas.

Ontario has already enacted CBAs, and other provinces such as Nova Scotia, Quebec, and Manitoba are also following suit. Moreover, other countries, including the United States and the United Kingdom, have already implemented CBAs in their respective infrastructure funds. Ultimately, CBAs would create the foundation for communities to achieve their fair share of federal infrastructure investments. Furthermore, it's about ensuring that future federal projects involving construction, maintenance, or repair would result in community benefits for millions of Canadians from coast to coast to coast.

I also put it to the committee that besides the tangible benefits of CBAs, they are a vehicle that would create an opportunity for the pursuit of dignity, and build the inner-being infrastructure of Canadians.

That is my submission. Thank you very much, and I'm prepared to answer any questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you very much.

Sorry, Mr. Aubin, we're over your time.

Thank you very much to all of our witnesses. We appreciate very much your taking the time to provide us with sufficient information as we do this study.

We will suspend for a moment and then resume shortly.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Wednesday, October 25, 2017, we are examining Bill C-344, an act to amend the Department of Public Works and Government Services Act (community benefit). For those of you who were on the committee before, we dealt with this issue before under our current Minister of Immigration. He was hosting it. It subsequently was approved with two amendments from this committee. Then Mr. Hussen ended up being the minister and couldn't carry the bill any longer. Mr. Sangha picked it up. At that time it was Bill C-227. It is now Bill C-344.

Mr. Sangha would you like to speak to the bill, please?

Department of Public Works and Government Services Act

[Erin Weir, NDP, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, we have heard that the Conservatives will be opposing this bill because it lacks specifics but they see the potential for negative consequences. We in the NDP are a hopeful and optimistic party, so despite the bill's lack of specifics we will be supporting it because we see the potential for it to be quite positive legislation. We will also be proposing amendments at committee to try to set out some of those needed specifics. We certainly support the concept of community benefit agreements, trying to ensure that public infrastructure investment creates local jobs and local training opportunities and that it really enriches the local community.

One of the main purposes the government has provided for infrastructure investment is to boost the Canadian economy. Of course, infrastructure spending only boosts the economy to the extent that it employs Canadian workers and procures Canadian-made inputs. However, the current government has a very weak track record of actually making an effort to use procurement policy in that way.

We see, for example, the construction of the new Champlain Bridge using only 19% Canadian-made steel. Even as we have steel mills struggling through bankruptcy protection and laying off workers, the Canadian government is importing a huge amount of steel to build this new bridge. This would be a great example of where the concept of community benefits could be put into effect in a very useful way. Therefore, I agree with basically everything that the member for Brampton Centre said; I am just somewhat skeptical that this bill would actually achieve the laudable goals that the member set forward.

The first thing that is important to emphasize is that this bill would not require community benefit agreements. It would not even require contractors to provide information on community benefits. What it would do is allow the minister to require contractors to provide this information. Therefore, in the hands of a very energetic and proactive minister, it is possible that this bill could be used as a tool to help negotiate community benefit agreements, but it would not actually require the government to do anything of the sort.

Another very important issue is the scope of this legislation. I asked the member for Brampton Centre whether it would apply only to infrastructure that is entirely funded by the federal government, which is very little infrastructure, or whether it would apply to infrastructure that the federal government cost-shares with other levels of government. We did not get any kind of a clear answer to that question, but this is a real issue and it came up at committee when this bill's predecessor, Bill C-227, went before the transport committee. The government essentially tried to indicate that Bill C-227 would only apply to infrastructure totally funded by the federal government, which means it would not apply to very much infrastructure at all.

We believe that a more realistic proposal would be to apply this legislation to infrastructure that the federal government cost-shares with other levels of government, but of course that would require a lot more detail and a lot more information about how the federal government would reconcile its objectives in terms of community benefits with those of provincial and municipal governments. I believe there is the potential for the federal government to work together with provinces and municipalities in quite a constructive fashion to achieve community benefit agreements. However, that is something we should be acknowledging and discussing, rather than talking about this bill as though it would only apply to the very small subset of infrastructure that is entirely paid for by the federal government itself.

Another issue I would like to raise regarding this bill is the lack of evaluation or monitoring. If we were to have a successful strategy to implement community benefit agreements, we would want a very good mechanism to report back on whether the benefits were actually achieved.

What this bill talks about is the minister providing a report on community benefits, which could be almost anything. The minister could easily just pick and choose projects that had some community benefits, and highlight those and trumpet those. It would be very easy for the minister to just put forward a positive report without actually doing much analysis or without really evaluating anything.

We believe it would make a lot more sense for this bill to actually require the minister to report on whether community benefits were achieved, so that we have some actual evaluation of whether all the money that the government is spending on public infrastructure is actually creating local jobs, providing apprenticeship opportunities, improving local communities, and improving our natural environment. We believe that this bill requires a lot more detail in terms of reporting and evaluation.

Another issue that is very important to discuss is how this bill fits with international trade agreements. The government has been very aggressive in signing onto trade deals that limit the public sector's ability to use procurement policy to require local employment, the purchasing of local inputs, and that sort of thing.

One of the questions that came up at committee with this bill's predecessor, Bill C-227, was whether it actually fit in with some of the trade deals that the government has signed. We have not gotten a very clear answer on this from the government, but I believe it is an important question. I do not bring it up as an argument against community benefit agreements. I think we want to pursue community benefit agreements, but we also want to make sure we are not negotiating trade agreements that take away the ability of government to use procurement policy in that way.

What I fear about this bill is that it actually contains so little that maybe it does comply with international trade agreements but it complies with them only because it requires so little of the government or of contractors. It is essentially totally up to the minister whether to even require information on community benefits. It seems as though the bill may not actually apply to very much infrastructure, if it is only those few projects that are entirely funded by the federal government. I hope the answer is not that this bill complies with international trade agreements because it does not actually do anything and it does not require anything.

Now, of course, we do have a number of trade agreements that apply to infrastructure that is entirely funded by the federal government. Where our country has more latitude to use procurement policy in a constructive way is with provincial and municipal infrastructure. Fortunately, most infrastructure is indeed also funded by those levels of government. However, the government does not seem to want to say that this bill would apply to those projects.

The NDP very much supports community benefit agreements. We want to see public investment in infrastructure supporting jobs in local communities, providing apprenticeship opportunities, improving the local area, and supporting a clean environment. A way of actually achieving that would be for the federal government to negotiate community benefit agreements in concert with provincial and municipal governments for infrastructure projects that are jointly funded. That would have an effect on a lot of infrastructure and would also comply with international trade agreements.

Unfortunately, we are getting the suggestion from the government that this would only apply to those few projects that are totally federally funded and, in that case, might not fit in with Canada's international trade obligations.

In conclusion, we in the NDP are going to support this bill, but we are going to support it with the view to getting it to committee so that we can amend it into a constructive and positive piece of legislation.

[Ramesh Sangha, Liberal, Brampton Centre, ON]

moved that Bill C-344, An Act to amend the Department of Public Works and Government Services Act (community benefit), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to rise in the House with the support of the hon. member for Don Valley North to introduce my private member's bill, Bill C-344, an act to amend the Department of Public Works and Government Services Act to introduce community benefits.

I would like to take this moment to thank the residents of my riding of Brampton Centre for giving me the opportunity to introduce the bill and for electing me as the first member of Parliament for Brampton Centre.

Bill C-344 would further strengthen the federal infrastructure investment in communities, such as in my riding, and throughout Canada.

I would like to take the opportunity to thank the member for York South—Weston for his extensive work on his previous private member's bill. At the committee hearing, two amendments to Bill C-227 were suggested by the committee. Hence my bill, Bill C-344, is before the house today.

Community benefit agreements, referred to as CBAs, create socio-economic opportunities for local communities and neighbourhoods as well as environmental benefits as a result of federal development projects across Canada. These benefits include local job creation, apprenticeships, affordable housing, education, support for seniors, health care, and other key benefits for communities.

Bill C-344 would amend section 20 of the Department of Public Works and Government Services Act. This would include a provision that would enable the Minister of Public Services and Procurement to require successful bidders on federal projects to report information on community benefits. This provision would ultimately create a platform to minimize possible delays and promote flexibility for community infrastructure development.

CBAs would enable the ministry of public services and procurement to formulate agreements with federal infrastructure developers with added input from community groups. These agreements would lay the foundation to encourage local communities to build partnerships with developers. Ultimately, CBAs would strengthen the socio-economic influence of publicly funded development projects.

For example, in my riding of Brampton Centre, federal investments into infrastructure have greatly contributed to social development in the community. The Züm bus rapid transit fund has revolutionized transit infrastructure across the City of Brampton and has attracted approximately $95 million of federal investment. Further, a federal investment of $69 million in a stormwater management project in Peel region has greatly contributed to improving the quality of life in the community. However, had CBAs been tied to these investments, the overall impact could have been much greater. Communities across Canada rely on federal investments to fund development projects, so if CBAs are tied to these federal investments, communities would thrive.

This was evident in the city of Vancouver, where the 2010 Olympic Village was built under a CBA. This initiative allowed communities to have a direct input on the project.

Bill C-344 would allow for comprehensive consultations with communities across Canada, consequently strengthening local infrastructure investments. It would also reduce red tape for small and medium-sized businesses and further accelerate the approval process for federal repair and construction projects.

Moreover, various business groups and organizations support the concept of CBAs. The boards of trade for Brampton, Toronto, Vancouver, and Montreal, and various unions, have endorsed CBAs as strong economic policy and an optimal way to promote youth employment.

As a member of the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities, referred to as HUMA, I have first-hand experience of the harsh realities of poverty in Canada. This committee has conducted a study with recommendations on a national poverty reduction strategy that was submitted to this Parliament. It is quite evident that CBAs will promote increased prosperity and drastically reduce poverty in communities across Canada.

Further, a joint report from the Mowat Centre and the Atkinson Foundation found that CBAs have the ability to promote a better environment for unique areas. In Ontario alone, the provincial government will invest $130 billion into public infrastructure over the next 10 years. The federal government has committed more than $180 billion into transit, green, and social infrastructures. As such, this is the time to collaborate with communities so they can also benefit from such lucrative federal investments.

CBAs will ultimately enhance the socio-economic development of cities across Canada. CBAs have already been implemented in Ontario with the enactment of the Infrastructure for Jobs and Prosperity Act. This act aims to remove any red tape so that the approval process for provincial infrastructure investment projects can be more efficient.

Furthermore, a number of organizations, including Metrolinx and the Toronto Community Benefits Network, have signed a community benefits framework, the first in Ontario.

The U.S.A. and the U.K. have already adopted the CBA concept into their respective infrastructure investments. In the U.S.A., CBA success stories include the Atlanta Beltline project, the Los Angeles airport expansion, and the Los Angeles Grand Avenue project. One stipulation on these projects was the requirement to submit reports on the benefits derived for communities. Provinces such as Nova Scotia, Quebec, and Manitoba are also in the process of adopting the CBA concept.

Bill C-344 would authorize the Minister of Public Services and Procurement to require bidders to provide a detailed explanation of how government-funded projects will benefit the community. It would also require the minister to report to Parliament on an annual basis on what community benefits have been implemented.

Bill C-344 is about implementing CBAs in the federal jurisdiction. This will give added responsibility to the Government of Canada to exercise leadership in implementing CBAs across Canada. Ultimately, CBAs will create the foundation for communities to earn their fair share of federal infrastructure investment. This will ensure that communities have reliable growth and meaningful employment while fostering a healthier environment.

This is an extraordinary opportunity for the Government of Canada and the Government of Ontario to have CBAs preserved in law. This can serve as a model for other jurisdictions to follow. It is about ensuring that future federal infrastructure projects would generate community benefits for all Canadians coast to coast to coast.

I therefore humbly invite all my colleagues in this House to support Bill C-344, an act to amend the Department of Public Works and Government Services Act (community benefit) so that communities across Canada can have access to enhanced infrastructure developments.

Besides the tangible benefits offered by CBAs, they will also serve as a vehicle for the pursuit of dignity and rebuild the core infrastructure of Canadian communities that are eagerly awaiting them.

[Jamie Schmale, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON]

Just on Ms. Boucher's private member's business, I appreciate what you were saying there, and I do appreciate you extending that branch to us, so thank you. I think we're making the difference that Ms. Boucher's bill is kind of outside the jurisdiction of this committee, whereas we believe the House made a decision on the other bill, Bill C-227, where that would have jurisdiction in this committee and that information is from the clerk. We believe the House has made a decision on one, whereas it hasn't on the other.

[The Clerk of the Committee, Mr. Marc-Olivier Girard]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Schmale, for your concerns.

To address these, you talked first about Standing Order 86, if I remember correctly. Just to inform the committee members, this standing order actually applies to notices, for instance a private member's motion or a private member's bill, that members eligible for private members' business put on the Notice Paper.

In this specific instance, the standing order doesn't apply, because you cannot argue that, for instance, Bill C-344 was identical or similar to another item already on the Order Paper. Why? Because on January 31, the House of Commons had already withdrawn the bill by Mr. Hussen, Bill C-227. Basically, Bill C-227 was no longer on the Order Paper when Mr. Mr. Sangha wanted to put Bill C-344 on notice. That was your first comment.

Your second point was about a decision of the House being made. The practical interpretation is this. The time of the House of Commons is very precious. The House doesn't like to waste its time on something it has already considered in the past and also voted on or decided on in the current session of Parliament. I interpret this decision as one of the following options: a bill that would be negatived at second reading; a bill that would be negatived at report stage; a bill that would be negatived by the House at third reading; or a bill that would be adopted at third reading for final passage of the bill.

If I take a look at Bill C-227, nothing in this decision actually happened to the bill. The bill was withdrawn when it reached report stage in the House of Commons. None of these options actually applied to Bill C-227 before the withdrawal from the House of that bill.

With that in mind, it's my interpretation, as a matter of procedure, that the decision has not necessarily been officially made. If you follow the spirit of the rule you mentioned on Bill C-227, the withdrawal from the House of Commons of that bill was mostly based on the fact that the bill had no eligible sponsor anymore for private members' business, Mr. Hussen having been appointed as a minister of the crown. It was not a decision made on the substance of the bill.

I'll let my interpretation be the advice I'm giving to the committee, but as a person devoted to the committee, I will emphasize that the final decision lies with the committee itself.

[Alexandre Lavoie, Committee Researcher]

The only item I wish to comment on is Bill C-344. You may have noticed that Bill C-344 is essentially the same as another bill, Bill C-227, which was struck from the Order Paper on January 31. I understand that this bill was dropped from the Order Paper not because of the substance of the bill, but because its sponsor was appointed Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship. Marc-Olivier can confirm that it shouldn't be a problem to have this bill discussed again in the House.

That's the only one, unless there are other questions on issues.

Framework on Palliative Care in Canada Act

[Cheryl Hardcastle, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. It was a slip of the tongue.

Among other things, the motion called for the government to work with the provinces and territories on a flexible integrated model of palliative care by establishing a universal right to palliative care and by implementing a pan-Canadian palliative and end-of-life care strategy that would be tied to dedicated funding.

As I said, we expected this funding to be in the government's first budget but it was not. Here we are in the House debating a private member's bill from a member of the Conservative caucus, which indicates to me that we are at a momentous point in time. There is broad agreement across party lines on this issue and so it is time to face our responsibility to governance that makes progress on human rights and end-of-life care. That we are ready to be progressive on palliative care is momentous and I applaud my hon. colleague for utilizing her private member's bill for this noble initiative.

I was disconcerted when the previous Conservative government eliminated the federally funded national secretariat on palliative end-of-life care. Had it left the support funding intact, maybe we would not be discussing this matter today but would have a resolution and the member for Sarnia—Lambton would not have had to table this bill. I am sure she has other noble causes she could turn her attention to.

As for the current government, the Liberals have had ample opportunity to enshrine quality palliative care as a right for all Canadians, no matter where they live. They could have developed a national strategy that would have eased the burden on both the dying and their families on one end and health care providers on the other, but it was not a priority. I am still flabbergasted when I think of the callousness demonstrated as debate on Bill C-14 was introduced with absolutely no indication that anyone in the government understood the responsibility to secure end-of-life care standards for human beings.

The most significant reason I asked to speak to the bill today was I wanted to lament the unnecessary suffering in the reality of our systemic inadequacies. A national strategy would address these sufferings. I want to hear in person the government's rationale for choosing not to act on this issue.

The New Democrats were surprised to find that the 2016 federal budget contained zero federal funds earmarked for palliative care, especially after we fought for the joint committee on physician-assisted dying to incorporate palliative care.

Given the lack of health care spending in the federal budget, it is no surprise that palliative care was missing. Hopefully by now all of us understand this, that home care is very relevant to this issue. The fact that the Liberal promise of $3 billion for home care turned out to be fiction is also very disconcerting as we take stock of our health care system, its mandate and purpose and know that to move forward we have to include palliative care options that patients and their families deserve to expect.

The Canadian Cancer Society has stated that improvements to the palliative care system in Canada are desperately needed. Without clear national standards and accountabilities, individual jurisdictions are left to develop their own policies, programs, and guidelines, resulting in inconsistent or inadequate access across the country.

In Ontario, for instance, 40% of cancer patients do not receive a palliative assessment in their last year of life. In some regions of Atlantic and Western Canada, administrative data showed that less than half of people who died in a hospital received palliative care. Remarkably, there are many jurisdictions in the country where we do not even know how many Canadians receive quality palliative care. We lack consistent and ongoing data collection at a systematic level, which leaves us unable to more effectively hold our health care systems accountable to make positive changes.

Also, it is not just an issue of data collection. It is vital that any national palliative care strategy takes into account the geographic, regional, and cultural diversity of urban and rural Canada. It must respect our diverse cultural, spiritual, and familial needs, including Canada's first nations, Inuit, and Métis people.

According to Dr. Mary Lou Kelley, research chair in palliative care at Lakehead University in Thunder Bay, the federal health care dollars that would help indigenous people receive end-of-life care at home have not kept up with the increasing demand. Health care for first nations is the responsibility of the federal government, and it does provide some home care services, but the system was never designed to provide complex health care to people with chronic or advanced terminal diseases.

Members might imagine my disappointment that the words “indigenous”, “first nations”, “Inuit”, or “Métis” do not appear anywhere in the text of Bill C-227. However, that is not a deal breaker because it is something that can be addressed meaningfully as we move forward on a national strategy.

New Democrats believe strongly that any legislation that deals with the matter of palliative care must take into account the geographical, regional, and cultural diversity of our urban and rural Canada, and Canada's first nations, Inuit, and Métis people.

As our population ages, palliative care will become an ever-increasing function of the health care system. The federal government needs to support health care workers with the training and resources necessary to deliver it all across Canada. All Canadians deserve to live their final days in dignity and comfort. That is why there is an urgent need to address the significant disparities that remain across Canada with respect to end-of-life care, quality of care, and out-of-pocket costs.

For years now, New Democrats have worked to improve palliative care services for patients and their families. As the party that founded public health care in Canada—

(Bill C-227. On the Order: Private Members' Bills:)

December 5, 2016—Bill C-227, An Act to amend the Department of Public Works and Government Services Act (community benefit)--Mr. Ahmed Hussen

(Order discharged and bill withdrawn)

(Motion No. 109. On the Order: Private Members' Business:)

December 5, 2016—That the Standing Committee on Finance be instructed to undertake a study that would (a) examine the possibility and practicality of (i) building on the success of the Canadian Revenue Agency’s (CRA) auto-fill feature by further automating the tax filing process with the goal of achieving the ability of complete tax automation, (ii) offering to all Canadians the option of filing their taxes via a free, online T-1 tax form directly on the CRA “My Account” webpage or other secure format; (b) identify and examine the current cultural and institutional barriers that impede citizens from filing their taxes and thus from fully collecting their benefits; and that the Committee present its findings and recommendations to the House no later than one year from the adoption of this motion, provided that in its report, the Committee shall (i) explain the steps needed to implement these practices, as well as their advantages and disadvantages, (ii) highlight privacy, data security, and potential changes to the tax-code necessary to facilitate further automation, (iii) identify the prospective savings for Canadians in both time and money.--Mr. Andrew Leslie

(Motion withdrawn)

Business of the House

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, there have been consultations among the parties and I believe you will find agreement for the following motion. I move:

That, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice of the House, the Order for the consideration of report stage of Bill C-227, An Act to amend the Department of Public Works and Government Services Act (community benefit), standing in the Order of Precedence on the Order Paper, be discharged and the Bill be withdrawn; that Motion M-109, standing in the Order of Precedence on the Order Paper, be withdrawn; that the recorded division currently scheduled to be held immediately before the time provided for Private Members' Business on Wednesday, February 1, 2017, and any further recorded divisions deferred to that day pursuant to Standing Order 93 or 98, be held instead at an expiry of the time provided for the Government Orders that day; and that, immediately following the taking of any deferred recorded divisions that day, the House shall begin adjournment proceedings pursuant to Standing Order 38.

Transport, Infrastructure and Communities

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, Humber River—Black Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the seventh report of the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities regarding Bill C-227, an act to amend the Department of Public Works and Government Services Act (community benefit) with amendments.

[Alain Rayes, Conservative, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Yes, Madam Chair. I have my thoughts back in order. However, every time I hear things, I get shivers.

You say you do not want to make the job harder, you do not want to create pressure, it will not be the Minister making the decision, and you want to simplify the process to help small and medium-sized enterprises. I hear all that. However, in Bill C-227, which is what we have before us, it clearly says: "The Minister may" and "A contracting party shall, upon request by the Minister, ... ."

In my view, this bill gives the Minister the power to decide whether or not she wants to request information. As I understand it, however, the officials could decide by themselves and would not always be required to go to the Minister, so as not to complicate the system.

I am hearing two different things from my colleagues. It varies from motion to motion and from provision to provision. When it suits, they agree to it, but if it does not suit, they reject it.

I am finding it hard to imagine how this could be requested afterward, when you already have full power to request this in your tenders. Forgive me, but I am still trying to find out what more this bill will add to the power you already have at present. I really feel like I am hearing what my constituents say to me in my riding. I am trying to defend the officials, because I think there are excellent, effective people in the government bureaucracy, at all levels. Unfortunately, I really have the impression that this kind of bill adds more bureaucracy to the machine. I completely fail to see what more this is going to give you.

That being said, this is not really a question. I realize that it is more of a comment.

[David Schwartz]

That is an excellent question.

We are going to prepare a proposal, which will be considered by the Minister. As I mentioned earlier, we have to avoid having this cover contracts with very small values. As far as determining the threshold, in this case, we shall see.

The criteria that will determine what types of contract will be subject to Bill C-227will be transparent and clear. I hope that members of the committee will be reassured in that regard. We do not intend to consult the Minister or her office on each contract, to verify whether that condition will be imposed. We will have criteria that will, in fact, be transparent to the public.

We are in the process of developing those criteria. We are not far enough along to say that it will apply to contracts for a particular amount of money or to particular industries, or that particular benefits will be required.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

As soon as we finish with C-227—

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

All right.

Does everyone have the information they require in order to participate on C-227? I have no one on my list, so I'm going to move to clause-by-clause, if that's acceptable to the committee.

(On clause 1)

We have Mr. Aubin's amendment in front of us, replacing line 8 with “benefit means a social, economic or environmental benefit”.

Does everyone have the amendments in front of them?

Do you have them, Mr. Clarke?

[David Schwartz]

I would like to clarify that Bill C-227 does not require that enterprises hold consultations.

[David Schwartz]

I do not think so.

As I said in my presentation, we are not asking bidders to provide information about community benefits in the invitation to tender. We will do the evaluation of the various bidders, and the one we award the contract to is the one that will have to provide the information about those benefits; it is the one that will do an assessment once the work is completed.

For small and medium-sized enterprises, as I said earlier, we will establish criteria, because that requirement does not necessarily affect all projects. The bill enables the Minister to apply that measure in Bill C-227. In the case of a $150 plumbing contract or a $1,000 building or repair contract, I do not think it would be necessary to ask those enterprises to say whether their work provided community benefits.

We will establish criteria for determining what type of project an enterprise will have to comply with that for, and starting at what amount. I think that will enable us to reduce the risk of imposing an administrative burden on small and medium-sized businesses.

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

I want to dig a bit deeper here because Bill C-227, I think, is a wonderful first step. I think it's a good direction to take but I think we all agree around the table, from the past discussion that we've had, that there's a second, there's a third, and there's a fourth step attached to this, especially as it relates to those performance measures with respect to the bidding process and getting added value. Again, the municipalities do it all the time. There are millions of dollars that can be realized here, when bidding is happening, with respect to the added-value products that they add into their bids.

With that, I want to go to Mr. Hardie's earlier question. How then, after the fact, do you measure that performance? When Bill C-227 is put in place, how is the federal government now going to measure that performance based on what this bill actually defines as part of the overall process?

[David Schwartz]

On the challenges, I can only speak on behalf of PSPC, with respect to its scope and application. As soon as the bill is passed, we would be applying it to all PSPC contracts that fall within this scope. With respect to including it as rated criteria or mandatory criteria, unfortunately, the current structure of our trade agreements prohibits us from including it as rated criteria.

In discussions with industry, we haven't discussed Bill C-227, but we've discussed a number of things—prompt payment, good-quality design documents, a host of things—and I made reference to that collaborative relationship that we have with CCA, or the NTCCC, which is another organization. I think this legislation has the opportunity to clearly signal government intent, and that signalling, I think, could potentially cascade down.

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

That's what I'm getting at, Mr. Schwartz. Yes, we have Bill C-227 in front of us, and it is essentially a good first step, but what I'm getting at now is the second, the third, and the fourth step as this matures and as it accrues over time.

What I mean by that is that, in my opinion—and I'm sure we share this opinion around this horseshoe—this will in fact add value to the process. I think for the most part it can be applied to not just the federal level but it can be a discipline when monies are flowing from the federal level to municipalities, and quite frankly, to the provinces.

Second to that, and, again, moving down the road.... Coming from the municipal level as a former mayor, like my colleague opposite, we had been doing this for quite some time. What it did was, before the actual process was bid, it was actually part of a matrix and it was part of a waiting process on that matrix, and therefore, part of the ultimate bidding award because of the value-add that can be attached to it.

Therefore, when you're now moving forward with meeting a hopefully aggressive timeline with respect to Bill C-227, do you see that discussion happening in the future as well?

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

At this point, if Bill C-227 were to pass, how would the department adapt its processes to accommodate the intent and the reality of this new legislation?

[David Schwartz]

To begin with, I would like to clarify something.

Bill C-227 requires that in our requests for proposals, information about community benefits be provided. It is important to note that it is not talking about including a community benefits requirement. That is not a mandatory criterion for deciding whom to award the contract to. It is simply about providing information on community benefits. I want to be sure that the members of the committee understand that that is not part of the evaluation for deciding whom a contract will be given to.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

If it's all right with you, let's hold it until we finish with Bill C-227, and then we'll deal with this. Then we'll go in camera to deal with other business.

Is that all right, Mr. Berthold?

[David Schwartz, Director General, Commercial and Alternative Acquisitions Management Sector, Public Services and Procurement Canada]

Good morning, everyone.

Madam Chair and members of the committee, hello. I would like to thank you for giving me the opportunity to answer your questions concerning Bill C-227.

My name is David Schwartz, as the chair mentioned, and I am the director general of CAAMS, the commercial and alternative acquisitions management sector, with Public Services and Procurement Canada.

My sector buys goods and services and manages construction contracts amounting to over $7.5 billion a year on behalf of federal government departments and agencies. We buy from suppliers around the country.

The operation of government-owned facilities and construction contracts represent the top two commodities that my sector procures. Together, they represent $5.4 billion of the $7.8 billion in procurement we have averaged over the last three years. The services deal with government-owned facilities and construction contracts. The services that we procure include architecture and engineering, construction and maintenance, as well as property management and project delivery.

Today we leverage Government procurement so as to provide economic opportunities and community benefits across the country. Over 72 per cent of the business volumes for contracts awarded by my sector goes to small and medium-sized enterprises.

The majority of construction contracts awarded by PSPC in a particular region go to suppliers located in that region. Communities are currently benefiting from government procurement. Taking the figures from the last three years, we see that 93% of construction contracts awarded in the Atlantic region went to suppliers located in the Atlantic region. That figure was even higher in Ontario and Quebec, at 98%.

Public Services and Procurement Canada is supportive of the objectives of Bill C-227. Public Services and Procurement Canada manages close to $15 billion in procurement on behalf of federal departments and agencies. Those procurements provide economic opportunities and community benefits across the country. Close to 40% of our overall procurement business goes to small and medium-sized enterprises.

With respect to the bill, in order to reduce the administrative burden of having each bidder submit information on the community benefits their respective proposal would provide, the proposed planned approach would be to only require the winning bidder to provide that information and to do so before contract award. A standard clause could be developed and inserted into RFPs issued by PSPC to place this requirement on bidders. Collecting the required information will build departmental knowledge of the community benefits that accrue from federal procurement.

Thank you for your time and attention. We would be pleased to answer your questions.

[The Chair (Hon. Judy A. Sgro (Humber River—Black Creek, Lib.)), Liberal, Judy Sgro]

I'm calling to order meeting number 37 of the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities. Pursuant to the order of reference of Wednesday, October 5, 2016, Bill C-227, an act to amend the Department of Public Works and Government Services Act, regarding community benefit.

Welcome to everyone who's here.

We have with us, Mr. Schwartz, director general, commercial and alternative acquisitions management sector. It seems we always have interesting names for sectors in our government.

I'm going to turn it over to you for some brief comments.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Okay, thank you.

As we have been saying from the beginning, Bill C-227 only applies to the contracts of Public Services and Procurement Canada.

Mr. McDonald spoke about drinking water or aqueduct projects, but they are excluded from this bill. He also mentioned that this was a first step. In my opinion, it is a rather dangerous step.

We all want federal government projects to provide significant local benefits. The government is presenting a minor bill that does not force the other levels of government to do anything but a study. Isn't there a risk that someday it may mention the fact that it adopted Bill C-227 as an excuse, and say that it has done its part for local benefits, and that we should come back to see it in four years? That is what I fear.

Local benefits are very important to the economy of all of our communities. I too was mayor, and I am familiar with the importance of those benefits, both for training workers and for the community. By tabling such a small, weak bill, are you not afraid that we will only be delaying the file, whereas we should demand a real piece of legislation on local benefits?

Mr. Varone, you could answer first.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

Perhaps you'll be able to complete the answer you were giving when it comes to apprenticeships based on my question.

The sponsor of Bill C-227 stated that Ontario's Bill 6 was the inspiration for this bill. However, Bill 6 does not put the impetus on the contractor to consult when it comes to community benefits. Rather, Bill 6 lists exactly what the province considers the community benefits to be. The contractors must include in each bid how they will fulfill these criteria.

Bill 6 actually says, in subsection 9(2):

A bidder that enters into a procurement process for the construction or maintenance by the Government of an infrastructure asset shall, in the prescribed circumstances, provide to the Government as part of the procurement process a commitment respecting the intended use of apprentices in the construction or maintenance in the event of a successful bid.

The prescribed requirements are basically related to an apprenticeship plan. What other community benefits may be contemplated, and should they be defined by the department prior to seeking the bids?

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Thank you.

Let me take advantage of your answer to segue into my next topic, because it seems obvious to me that there is a connection between the Ontario Infrastructure for Jobs and Prosperity Act of 2015 and the bill we are studying right now.

The Ontario act stipulates clearly that bidders on government tenders must indicate the number of apprentices they intend to hire, and the means they intend to use to employ women, aboriginal people, newcomers to the province, young people at risk, veterans, and so on. Do you think we should include this type of criteria in Bill C-227, which would clarify expectations?

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I want to welcome the two witnesses and thank them for being here and taking part in our study.

There is a consensus as to the objectives of Bill C-227, but the substance is very vague.

We tried to clear up a certain number of points with the witnesses who preceded you, such as the environmental aspect, which could be included, and the requirements the minister could impose. So I would like to explore a few other avenues with you.

I will begin with you, Mr. Cartwright.

We know that the successful realization of local benefits will in large part be due to communication among the unions, workers and community groups. But all communities are not that well organized.

Do you think that Bill C-227 should allow prior public consultations before any work is done?

[John Cartwright, President, Toronto and York Region Labour Council]

Good morning, committee. My name is John Cartwright. I'm the president of the Toronto and York Region Labour Council representing over 205,000 women and men who work in every sector of the economy. I'm a construction worker by trade, having started as a carpenter apprentice at the age of 18. I'm here to support the amendments that are contained in Bill C-227.

We feel that the billions of dollars in investment that's about to be made through the federal infrastructure program serves a multiple purpose.

For the last two and a half years, the Toronto Community Benefits Network, which I co-chair, has been working with the Government of Ontario and Metrolinx to create a community benefits model for the $8 billion of construction in the Toronto transit lines. That really focuses on ensuring that the prosperity that will come with that investment is shared adequately in our community, particularly among those who sometimes have been left out of prosperity in past economies. We're looking particularly at historically disadvantaged communities, equity-seeking groups, and military veterans to be included in the apprenticeship opportunities in that work as well as in the white-collar side, the professional, administration, and technical work unique in North America to ensure that graduates and internationally trained professionals can get opportunities for employment.

To create that model, we brought people from the United Kingdom, from the United States, and from British Columbia into a meeting to talk about the different experiences that had been involved in those different jurisdictions in community benefits. There are now over three dozen community benefits agreements working on major infrastructure programs in the United States.

We think we have it right. We have a whole series of commitments through the trades in Toronto to reach out to diverse communities to help engage people from diverse communities to come into our industry. We've already had several hundred young people from those different communities come into the trades, and with the Eglinton Crosstown, we anticipate hundreds more coming into those trades.

This is not a simple task, but we look at mirroring what happened around the health and safety agenda in the construction industry in the past decades. Originally when we created a health and safety regime under Bill 208 in 1990, there were some on the employer side among supervisors and contractors who were resistant to embracing those elements, but three decades later, there's not a major contractor in Ontario that doesn't talk about the importance of having a full health and safety regime as part of its culture. We believe that is a transformation we can do within the construction industry across Canada by helping to change the openness to first nations people, to newcomer communities, to young people, and to youth at risk, to ensure that they actually have a chance to have a decent career.

A similar parallel is really to be made around green construction. I remember when LEED was first brought up as a possible goal for building, and it was very much a small marginal effort at the time. Today there's not a major contractor, architect or engineering firm in Canada that doesn't have LEED specialists on its staff in order to achieve those goals, and every major project is trying to reach some form of LEED standards, including platinum when it can.

We believe that kind of transformation is possible by tasking the construction industry with embracing community benefits, by looking at the major projects that the federal government will invest in, and by making those choices.

We are going to spend billions of dollars. We have crisis levels of youth incarceration in first nation communities across this country. The Globe and Mail today talked about that being 25%. We have a crisis of young people in greater Toronto falling into violence and gang activity. The alternative, instead of spending money on prisons or on the health crisis of diabetes in first nations, is to spend the money on infrastructure and to make sure it gives double value, that is, by creating the infrastructure that our country needs for the 21st century and also by creating the job opportunities that so many young Canadians need in order to be part of a growing industry, and to have a career in an industry that values apprenticeships and training, that gives people portable skills they can take with them for the rest of their lifetime, an opportunity I was fortunate enough to have at the age of 18.

That's my presentation, and I'm happy to answer questions.

[Toni Varone, Past Chair, Business Development Committee of Downsview Park]

Madam Chair, distinguished members of the committee, my name is Toni Varone and I reside in the city of Toronto.

I appear before you in support of Bill C-227, an act to amend the Department of Public Works and Government Services Act (community benefit). In private life, I own and manage a hospitality company in Toronto as well as a real property business involved in the residential and commercial sectors. In public life, I've served on a variety of municipal, provincial, and federal boards, as well as on charitable non-profit boards. Both my private and public experiences lead me to conclude that the amendment being debated today is not only necessary but essential.

The community benefit mechanism allows for direct investment in local communities by the federal government, which is much too often perceived as being remote and insensitive to local issues. The funds being debated are new funds for the local communities and are not available through traditional means. The community benefit could manifest itself and lead to local improvements to infrastructure as well as benefits to the local environment, to parkland, or even to public art. I'm wishful to think that this community benefit could be as far-reaching as the setting up of local skills development offices or other federal service agencies that far too often seem remote to the local communities.

I understand full well that we are one taxpayer already burdened by taxes from principally all three levels of government. I also believe wholeheartedly that all levels of government should have some tangible focus on local issues, collaborating as much as they can to solve the issues that touch local residents.

In Toronto where I'm active in the business of real property development, I've been involved in what are called section 37 agreements, referring to section 37 of the Planning Act of Ontario. Through section 37, when we as developers exceed local zoning bylaws or impact a community through density or built-form change, we're required to compensate with a community benefit. This benefit can range from improvements to local infrastructure, parks, or public art, to a contribution to affordable housing. It is a local municipal councillor, in dialogue with a developer, that reaches an agreement on the benefit to be conferred to the local community. It is a practice that has yielded many communities benefits not otherwise affordable through their traditional tax bases.

Respectfully, I suggest that this can be emulated at the federal level, and as such, I support this amendment. The onus, however, will be on the local member of Parliament to sensitize himself or herself to the needs of his or her community. The burden will be to use the money wisely so it does not duplicate but enhances other community benefits from other levels of government.

Issues that need to be thought through if this amendment passes are many. I will name a few: whether the community benefit money should be pooled for greater impact or larger projects; whether a balancing mechanism should be adopted to ensure that the benefits reach all communities, since it is inevitable that some ridings or constituencies will have greater resources than others; whether the member of Parliament should be mandated to consult with the local community to search out the benefit; and whether audit and control procedures should be established to make certain that tangible benefits remain in the community.

I close by encouraging support for this initiative. I'm reminded of a saying from the U.S. House Speaker in the 1990s, Tip O'Neill, that all politics is local.

Thank you.

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I thank all of the witnesses for being with us this morning. It is a pleasure to have you here.

As for Bill C-227, of course it is difficult to be against motherhood. It would be like saying that I'm against apple pie.

That said, however, the bill seems very vague to me. I was, in fact, very happy to hear Ms. Murphy say earlier that new paragraph 20.1(2), the amendment proposed to the Department of Public Works and Government Services Act, should have more teeth. The minister should be using “must” rather than “may” when it comes to requiring local benefits.

I have not heard the other witnesses on this topic. I'm going to give them a chance to express their thoughts. If they do not agree with this amendment, I would like to know what criteria the minister could use to require such benefits or not.

In the same vein, I would go a bit further with you, Ms. Murphy. I will give you the floor first. In your opinion, should the bill also include penalties if these requirements are not respected?

[Colette Murphy, Executive Director, Atkinson Foundation]

Thank you very much.

Good morning everyone.

The Atkinson Foundation has been concerned about social and economic justice for more than seven decades. We put our resources into the people, organizations, and networks focused on decent work for all, including narrowing the income gap, creating employment, and building wealth for low-income communities.

Since 2013, Atkinson has been investing its own resources and working with partners from across sectors to advance community benefits in policies and practice. We believe Canada has a tremendous opportunity to make progress on social policy goals by improving its procurement processes. By requiring community benefits as part of certain government spending, it's possible to increase the impact of these dollars: more decent work, less precarious employment, great career ladders, fewer dead ends for workers, renewed public infrastructure, and stronger and more resilient communities.

I want to make four key points related to our support for the passage of Bill C-227. First, we believe community benefit policies enable a more strategic approach to procurement when linked to federal priorities of economic growth, social inclusion, poverty reduction, and environmental sustainability. For example, by targeting training opportunities for those who have difficulty accessing the labour market, such as youth at risk or veterans, community benefits target those hardest hit by the economy. By being deliberate about opportunities for local suppliers, in particular small and mid-sized ones, and social enterprises, community benefits build local economies, and attaching goals around GHG reductions helps reduce our carbon footprint.

To do this, the Government of Canada can build upon its own experiences, in particular, the procurement strategy for aboriginal businesses. Since 1996, the program has awarded more than 100,000 contracts to aboriginal firms totalling $3.3 billion in value. There are also potential synergies with Bill C-227 within the federal family. In addition to Public Services and Procurement Canada, other departments such as Infrastructure Canada, Employment and Social Development Canada and Veterans Affairs, which already have community benefits in their ministerial mandate letters, are likely strong contributors to a Government of Canada community benefit strategy which passing the bill would help advance.

Community benefits also provide measurable results, which is important to policy-makers. The University of Glasgow reviewed 24 public contracts with community benefit clauses in Scotland and found they had exceeded job opportunity targets, with more than 6,700 individuals from priority communities receiving training and 1,000 individuals from priority communities recruited for jobs. Community benefits associated with the Vancouver Olympic Village placed 120 disadvantaged workers in construction and led to $24 million in procurement for inner-city businesses, thereby surpassing targets.

Second, Canadian provinces and municipalities are already moving to adopt community benefits policies and practices. Federal requirements to include community benefit clauses in procurement would be consistent with these goals and changing practices. For example, the Ontario government has recently promulgated the Infrastructure for Jobs and Prosperity Act, which calls for community benefits, and mandates apprenticeships and training opportunities for targeted communities and public infrastructure projects. The Yukon government recently announced it will establish resources, policies, and processes to support the strategic role and importance of procurement.

Third, this is a value-for-money proposition. The cost is low in comparison to the returns. Embedding requirements for community benefits into procurement requires a change of approach, but it need not be costly either to government or to private contractors. It helps ensure public spending meets a range of policy objectives rather than treating those expenditures as one dimensional.

Capacity building resources will be needed for implementation, but current government programs already funded to support such things as workforce development, SMEs, or social enterprises can be leveraged and I'm happy to give examples of how this is done in other jurisdictions.

Finally, community benefits in procurement is a significant policy innovation. It needs to build upon good practice in how to do this successfully. Luckily we have excellent examples in Canada, the U.S., the U.K., and other jurisdictions of how to create effective community benefit policies and implementation practices. They share several traits. We have research reports that outline them, but I'll just flag one for you in closing.

Mandatory language is critical. Policies that require only that community benefits be considered seldom have impact compared to those that require action. Passage of Bill C-227 will help realize our ambition for Canada to be known as world class, because its economy is equitable, inclusive, and prosperous.

Thank you very much.

[Rosemarie Powell, Executive Director, Toronto Community Benefits Network]

Thank you.

It's my pleasure to be here this morning representing the Toronto Community Benefits Network.

We're a community labour coalition, and we envision Toronto as an inclusive, thriving city in which all residents have equitable opportunities to contribute to building healthy communities and a prospering economy.

TCBN uses the approach of negotiating community benefits agreements to bring diversity to Toronto's infrastructure projects, starting with the Eglinton Crosstown. The TCBN fully supports the passage of Bill C-227, an act to amend the Department of Public Works and Government Services Act (community benefit), to include community benefits agreements, put forward by the Ahmed Hussen, the MP for York South–Weston.

Community benefits are defined as tangible social and economic opportunities and outcomes for communities, especially historically disadvantaged groups. They include, but are not limited to, jobs training and apprenticeships, procurement from local businesses and/or social enterprises, neighbourhood and environmental improvements, and other benefits as determined in consultation with the local community.

Income inequality in Canada has increased over the last 20 years, and in many of our neighbourhoods, particularly in Toronto, we are also seeing the negative impacts of systemic poverty, such as violence, as in the case of Toronto's former priority neighbourhoods. As our society transitions into the green economy, there will be a shakeup in the type, quality, and quantity of jobs that are available, and this crisis can only get worse. Our society needs to develop a fair and equitable transition policy—we believe that community benefits agreements can be one such tool—for our youth and other historically economically disadvantaged groups that has the potential for creating good jobs while helping to address society's concerns about climate change. Putting our youth to work towards building up their communities and protecting the environment not only makes good sense, it also makes good economic and environmental sense. Jobs in the construction trades are good, well-paid jobs with benefits. They focus on safety, and they could also be green jobs. Most importantly, these workers have the opportunity to build up their communities with the sense of pride, ownership, and responsibility that engenders.

Professional, administrative, and technical job categories are part of every major construction project. Many newcomers to Canada have much-needed valued skills, but they may lack professional networks to find jobs in their fields. Equally, apprenticeships in the construction industry create both long-term careers and short-term jobs. As entry-level jobs, they offer opportunities to people who are beginning their careers. Specific reference should be made to these jobs as part of legally binding community benefits agreements in major infrastructure projects.

There are other compelling reasons, of course, to pass Bill C-227. Infrastructure projects that include community benefits leverage public dollars that are already being spent to benefit local communities, aligning government's infrastructure spending with other policy goals. In partnership with our allies in labour, philanthropy, and academia with our first-ever community benefits framework with Metrolinx, the Toronto Community Benefits Network is experimenting with a historic partnership that has an incredible potential to significantly advance the province's sustainable development strategy by enshrining support for community benefits in its policies and practices.

CBAs are built on the shared commitment by all parties to achieve the objectives of the CBA within the context of successfully delivering on project deliverables. In this project, specific roles and responsibilities should be defined. For example, the TCBN understands that to successfully deliver on community benefits, the contractor needs reliable skilled labour and they need to meet project deadlines and receive public support for the project and their company's role in the project. This is why, through the Metrolinx working group structure that includes all stakeholders, the community works with Metrolinx to support the implementation of the project agreement with the contractor and their subcontractors, ensuring a qualified cohort of apprentices and a range of social enterprise subcontractors. In so doing, we work with a broad range of stakeholder groups, including industry workers, community, non-profit, workforce development, etc.

When Metrolinx and the project contractors are responsive in the community benefits agreements and implementation, the TCBN and its partners—we are 63 members in our coalition of community organizations and groups—facilitate the buy-in from the community in the process and outcomes.

Over the next 10 years, we have an opportunity. Cities all across Canada will benefit from unprecedented spending on public infrastructure by all levels of government. Pass Bill C-227 and seize the opportunity to create meaningful change for your constituents at all levels of the economic ladder. Let's build our nation from the ground up.

Thank you.

[The Chair (Hon. Judy A. Sgro (Humber River—Black Creek, Lib.)), Liberal, Judy Sgro]

I'm calling to order the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities of the 42nd Parliament. Pursuant to the order of reference of Wednesday, October 5, 2016, we are considering Bill C-227, an act to amend the Department of Public Works and Government Services Act, in regard to community benefit.

We have some witnesses who have joined us today. From the Atkinson Foundation, we have Colette Murphy, executive director, by video conference. From Canada Lands Company, we have John McBain, president and chief executive officer; and Robert Howald, executive vice-president, real estate. As well, from the Toronto Community Benefits Network, we have Rosemarie Powell, executive director. Welcome to you all. Thank you very much for being here.

We'll open the floor to Mr. McBain.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you very much to everybody.

Mr. LePage, Mr. Atkinson, and Mr. Smillie, thank you very much for your contributions today. Our time is up, but I think it has been a very interesting conversation for everyone as we go forward in reviewing C-227.

Thank you, folks. Have a good day.

The meeting is adjourned.

[Michael Atkinson]

Well, first of all, I suppose we're now not talking about C-227, because you mentioned the building Canada plan. It doesn't apply to that. But if I were to speculate, if it were to apply to the building Canada plan, the decision as to which delivery method to use would be up to the procuring government, so it would be a province or municipality in those circumstances. They are the ones best suited and best positioned to make a decision on how best to deliver that infrastructure in accordance with their asset management plan; I couldn't agree more with you. The community benefit aspect or how bidders might be able to leverage that is going to be determined by, in the case of a municipal project, the municipality. It is best positioned to understand its community and how that new piece of infrastructure and its construction can provide further and additional benefits. A community expects that; it puts it in its requirements and that becomes part of the contract. That's the way it would work in those circumstances.

I couldn't agree more with Mr. Smillie that what wouldn't work is having a voice from above, from the federal government, saying, “Community benefits shall be for all municipalities.” I'm sure municipalities themselves would have a problem with that because of their different needs and their different requirements.

I would see that decision being made by the procuring agency in those circumstances.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

I listened with great interest to the comments of our colleague who introduced his bill and to those of our witnesses. I have a lot of questions about the merits of Bill C-227 after what I've heard this morning.

I don't think this bill is being studied in the right place. It really should be studied by another committee. It talks about the rules for awarding contracts by the Department of Public Works and Government Services “for the construction, maintenance or repair of public works, federal real property or federal immovables”. All this is very far from our infrastructure investment plans.

Earlier, you made a comparison with the Ontario government's Bill 6, a very comprehensive bill. It probably enables Ontario to attain the objectives that our two witnesses mentioned, possibly even those of Mr. Atkinson.

The first clause of the explanatory note in Ontario's Bill 6 reads as follows:

The Government, and every broader public sector entity ... must consider a specified list of infrastructure planning principles when making decisions respecting infrastructure.

We see that this bill is comprehensive and helps to attain the objectives related to local economic benefits and hiring apprentices. If you take two quick seconds to read the bill, you'll see that it is indeed very comprehensive.

The bill before us indicates that the minister may seek information. Why does it read, “The Minister may ...”? Shouldn't she always do that? So that is one question.

According to the bill, this information that the minister would request would not enable her to demand accountability once the work is completed. She could do nothing else. She might request information before the work, and then she would ask whether what was promised was what was delivered. However, there is no obligation, no means in Bill C–227 that enables the minister to attain the objectives outlined by our witnesses.

My question is for Mr. Smillie.

Do you think Bill C–227 as drafted will lead to training more apprentices? Should we instead learn from Ontario's example and introduce a more comprehensive bill that would address the coming infrastructure plan?

[David LePage]

I think this bill is essential. I think Mr. Hardie has defined it as creating a platform.

When we see governments, whether municipal or provincial or federal, asking about the social impact that's going to come with this project, they're getting very creative responses from the community and industry working together to come up with creative solutions to address particular social problems.

I think we can look at the successes in Scotland. I think with the emerging international trade agreements, if Canada doesn't have something like Bill C-227, we're not going to be on a level playing field on the side of construction and industry. This is an international trend. Governments are setting these platforms; they're creating these arenas for industry, for construction, and for community to work together with government to use existing spending intentionally to create benefits. I don't think this is going on without the stimulus from government saying this is an important use of our taxpayer money.

[Alain Rayes, Conservative, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Mr. Smillie, my question is whether the government can already do this, without Bill C-227. As far as I know, the answer is yes.

[Alain Rayes, Conservative, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Atkinson.

Mr. Smillie, I am very interested in your comment about young apprentices. You said that only 19% of people hired on construction sites are apprentices. You seem to be basing this on a causal linkage when you say that you believe that Bill C-227 might improve the situation.

However, you noted that the government can dictate terms already in its calls for tender. So, without this bill, it could impose a certain percentage of apprentices or indicate its willingness for there to be one. The goal would be to prepare the next generation or the workforce and encourage young people. It might even want to target other community members.

Would you agree that the government can already impose these criteria if it wishes?

Mr. Atkinson can confirm that it would be just and fair to all the developers. Indeed, they would follow the same rules and would make their submissions on the same terms.

[Alain Rayes, Conservative, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Good morning. I'd like to thank the three witnesses for being here today.

MP Hussen, who introduced Bill C-227, told us earlier that he did not think it would generate any cost in the system, simply because it would only require adding a line in the contracts. The developer would only have to indicate whether or not there would be economic and social benefits for the community.

Yet I think it's much more complicated than that. In fact, when I was mayor, I saw many contracts and analyzed many tenders. If the answer indicated on that line was “yes”, someone would still need to do a fairly rigorous analysis to ensure that the situation was fair and just for all developers who submitted a contract.

Mr. Atkinson, do you think my analysis is wrong?

Do you really think that if we ensured things were fair and just for everyone who submitted tenders, this analysis would not require public funds?

[David LePage]

Thank you, Madam Chair and members of the committee, for the opportunity to appear before you and support Bill C-227.

This bill recognizes that every government purchase has a ripple effect. Every infrastructure investment, whether intentional or unintentional, has an economic effect and creates jobs. Bill C-227 offers government the opportunity to add an intentional social value as well, leveraging greater value from existing spending.

Buy Social works with social enterprises, which are often the partner businesses in social purchasing agreements. Social enterprises are small and medium-sized businesses that have a social purpose and reinvest the majority of their profits back into their social purpose.

Let me give you a few examples of how social purchasing agreements have stimulated social impact through subcontracting work between the construction industry and social enterprises, supporting not only the successful delivery of construction contracts, but also enhancing the social impact of existing projects.

In Vancouver's Downtown Eastside, one of Canada's poorest postal codes, EMBERS Staffing Solutions is a social enterprise operated by a registered charity. Its business model is to operate a socially conscious and supportive workplace in a day-labour company. Their revenues exceed $5 million annually. This year, they will create over 1,500 jobs for persons with barriers. These are people leaving prison, people recovering from addiction issues, and others seeking day-at-a-time entry or re-entry into the labour market. They operate primarily in partnership with the construction industry, providing needed skilled and unskilled workers to support the industry's construction contract requirements. They recently opened an office in Surrey to expand their business services and social impact into that community as well.

In Winnipeg, BUILD, a social enterprise working with youth at risk, primarily aboriginal youth, helps with pre-employment and entry-level employment, often leading to full employment in the construction industry. Everyone admires and appreciates their impact once you hear the amazing stories of former gang members moving from crimes on the street to productive employment with companies such as PCL.

The Cleaning Solution employs persons with mental health challenges. A simple but creative supply-chain partnership between the construction industry and a social enterprise has the Cleaning Solution cleaning the EllisDon offices at a construction site in Vancouver.

In Toronto, the Learning Enrichment Foundation, LEF, has for many years been actively engaged in supporting social impact spending as a means to support immigrants entering the labour force. LEF is a community partner in the current Crosslinx CBA initiatives.

What's fascinating is that in 2013 Ernst & Young research found that for every dollar spent on targeted employment by Atira Property Management, a social enterprise, there was a return of $3.32 to government.

We're also pleased to see this bill under consideration while simultaneously the Ministry of Innovation, Science and Economic Development, ISEC, and the Ministry of Employment and Social Development, ESDC, are engaged in developing a comprehensive cross-ministerial social enterprise strategy for Canada. Bill C-227 is an ideal way of integrating Public Works and Government Services into a larger cross-ministerial mandate focused on community, economic, and social development.

We believe that Bill C-227 will allow government to continue to create the intended economic stimulus that is created by government spending, but by adding a social impact element, that same money can be leveraged to address the most complex social issues our communities face. Community benefits agreements and social purchasing can include skills training and apprenticeships in the trades, as mentioned, and can create youth employment, address aboriginal economic challenges, and provide paths to integrate immigrants and new Canadians into the economy and social networks.

Without added costs or red tape, government can achieve a much greater return on the taxpayers' money: economic return, employment creation, and social impact. Adding intentional social value goals onto existing government construction and repairs spending will ensure our communities the greatest possible full-value return on taxpayer spending.

Thank you very much, and I look forward to the discussion and your questions.

[Christopher Smillie]

Good morning, Chair, members of the committee and fellow witnesses.

Canada's Building Trades Unions represents 500,000 skilled trades workers across Canada working for construction companies large and small. We have 250 training centres funded by member and contractor contributions delivering provincial and industrial curriculum for contractors and the economy.

The average age of apprentices has changed over time. We now see apprentices who are on average 28, 29 or 30 versus a decade ago, when apprentices were coming to us straight out of high school. According to BuildForce Canada, over the next 10 years more than 250,000 skilled trades workers will be retiring forever, and industry will be short more than 25,000 workers. We need to capture that body of knowledge, and train young Canadians looking to enter the workforce. Canada's young people need some training.

Statistics Canada's labour force survey lists youth unemployment in the 13% range, certainly worthy of public policy attention. The component principles of Bill C-227 are an important step for Canada's infrastructure future.

Community benefits and, specifically, training on public infrastructure projects, in our view, are key components of Canada's workforce training plan. Large federal infrastructure projects present an opportunity to train young Canadians while stimulating the economy.

If we want apprentices for the new economy, we have to give them the opportunity to acquire the hours required for the practical component of their studies. As a purchaser of construction, the federal government has a choice of contractor, and can dictate the terms of proposals from trade contractors. If government wants apprentices on federally funded job sites, they are free to put it in the RFP requirements like the long list of other things Public Works requires of bidders.

The introduction of this bill gets us thinking about leveraging the upcoming infrastructure spend for a public policy purpose. In the energy sector in Alberta, there is a track record of hiring apprentices as part of the RFP process. Major players in Alberta have been doing it for close to 10 years on new construction.

The evidence from this process is strong. It has increased workforce loyalty, and increased propensity for large energy projects to have a ready-made workforce for subsequent maintenance of their multi-billion dollar facilities. It also helped hundreds of people become journey people. This helps the next project and helps the economy.

We think the government should set thresholds of projects wherein community benefits are required as part of federal funding. It doesn't make sense to apply the training community benefit filter to small micro projects. This can paralyze or exclude small companies from participating. There are plenty of large projects, and retrofit work where it would work well. Set a project bid minimum and go from there. We think the provincial governments and municipalities should get on board considering these issues.

The Province of Ontario will spend almost as much as the Government of Canada on infrastructure over the next decade. Imagine all the training opportunities if both governments worked together on this initiative. Ontario has Bill 6. We talked about that this morning. It's about a year old. So far, so good.

Encouraging construction companies to have a training plan, hire and manage apprentices, and in the end create jobs for people that need them makes good public policy sense. In industry, we struggle to get a majority of construction companies to actually train apprentices. The Canadian Apprenticeship Forum estimates only 19% of Canadian companies hire an apprentice. This has to change.

The graduation rate from Canadian apprenticeship programs is fairly stagnant, primarily because of a lack of work for apprentices who are actually trying to find work. The federal government has a chance to play a leadership role on this file.

I remain available to take your questions. Thank you for the invitation, and I look forward to our conversation with my industry partner.

[Michael Atkinson]

Thank you, Madam Chair, and honourable committee members, for inviting the Canadian Construction Association to appear before you today on Bill C-227.

As those of you who were here last week know, CCA represents Canada's non-residential construction industry. I was before you on the navigable waters protection act.

We have 20,000-plus firms from coast to coast to coast across Canada. It is our members who will be most directly impacted by Bill C-227, because they bid on projects that are awarded or let by PSPC.

We appreciate that in Minister Foote's mandate letter, she was tasked with modernizing procurement practices to make them simpler, less administratively burdensome, and to include practices to support the government's economic goals, including green and social procurement. Clearly, Bill C-227 is consistent with this overall objective, so we are neither surprised by the bill nor opposed to its introduction.

However, our concerns deal specifically with how this is implemented, and, in particular, to make sure that any community benefits or social procurement objectives that are put into the procurement of a construction contract do not jeopardize the integrity of the competitive bidding system; or, put in another way that you might better understand, do not conflict with Treasury Board's own contracting policy guidelines with respect to tendering, etc.

For example, where an entity wants to have a certain public policy objective achieved through procurement of construction services, they must define that in the document that's soliciting bids. They must clearly define what it is they want the bidders to bid against, and to price. The opportunity has to be equal for all bidders competing. That's a very important point. The consultation process with respect to a local community, to define community benefits to go into a PSPC contract, would have to be done by the department prior to seeking bids. That's the only way that the procurement process would be in fact be complied with. That's an extremely important point.

I think, Madam Chair, I'm a little confused. I thought I was coming here to speak about Bill C-227, but I suspect we're going to get into a very good discussion about social procurement and community benefits. That, we're prepared to do, but it's important to understand that first point I'm making. Your own rules, right now, do not allow you to go to bidders after the bids have closed and ask, “What can you do for us locally?” We had a commission of inquiry in Quebec that frowned on that kind of approach. It's very important that those requirements be spelled out in the tender documents so that all bidders have an equality opportunity, so that it's transparent, accountable, etc. That's very important.

Let's turn to Bill C-227. As I said, we do not oppose the introduction of social procurement or community benefits into contracting. In fact, we see it all the time. It's the manner in which it's done that is so important, to ensure that taxpayers do get value for their money, and that it's done in a transparent way that supports the integrity of the bidding system.

Going to the specifics of what would be asked for in the community benefit agreement, our only question is on whether anybody has done their homework to determine whether in fact procurement is the best tool, or even an effective tool, to achieve that public policy objective. It may be a public policy objective that everybody agrees with—not a problem. Getting more employers to engage in apprenticeship is a laudable objective. We would absolutely support that. However, has anybody really done the exercise to determine whether that is the best means to do so?

Secondly, how do you measure it? How do you know, by putting this into the procurement of a particular construction project, that you are actually having an impact on the public policy objective you're seeking? With regard to the engagement, for example, of disadvantaged youth, is it happening only because it's a condition to get this particular contract? Is it really having an impact?

The Mowat Centre in Toronto did a study of the use of social procurement and community benefits worldwide in jurisdictions that have been doing it longer than Canadian jurisdictions. One of the things the study said was that it falls down if the conditions of the contract don't get enforced by the public sector contracting authority, or there's no metric to measure whether the use of those objectives in the procurement process is successful.

I guess we're here to say that, in general terms, we have absolutely no problem with the bill in what it's trying to achieve. The important point is the manner in which it's implemented. Public owners must define in their tender documents what it is they want the successful bidder to do. That's an absolute fundamental principle in competitive bidding. It's the only way to measure whether you're successful or not after the fact.

The worst-case scenario would be a situation in which, for example, a public sector agency said, “Give me a price on building the new hospital, but also I want to see another envelope as to what you're going to do for the local community.” That's the last thing we want to see in any procurement system. I think that's a key point. The only other thing I would close on is to say that this whole area is extremely important. Corporate social responsibility is becoming something that we are looking at very earnestly in our industry. It's a very important part of doing business today. We have a how-to guide coming out for our contracting members in the industry, but CSR is not social procurement. CSR is a voluntary program that a corporate entity takes on to ensure that what it does as a company meets environmental sensibilities, good HR practices, etc. Social procurement is a government coming out and saying, “If you want to do business with us, then you have to have a CSR policy.” I think that's a very important difference.

I'm going to conclude there, and I look forward to the discussion. Our biggest point is, and I'm repeating myself, but it is so important, that's how something like this gets implemented. When you read the bill, it's very clear we're talking about contracts that are awarded by the minister of PSPC. Those are federally funded projects that the PSPC would build themselves and would be the contractor on. Those projects, quite frankly, are fewer and far between than they used to be. It's not a huge area. Most of the infrastructure projects today are awarded or contracted by the municipalities or the provinces. It's important to keep that separation. Our speech is the same to municipal governments and provincial governments. If you're going to put community benefits or public policy objectives in your tendering, then define it up front. You want a building that is reduced in carbon emissions. You want a good environmental footprint. For Pete's sake, put that in the initial document, and allow all bidders an opportunity to come up with an innovative way to get you what you want.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you all very much for taking time out of your very busy schedules to join us and provide your comments on Bill C-227.

We will open up the floor to whoever chooses to go first.

Mr. Atkinson.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

I have three questions that go in all different directions. First, it's my understanding that Bill C-227 is an act to amend the Department of Public Works and Government Services Act. Why are we, the transportation and infrastructure and communities committee, hearing from the proponent of this bill on this particular act? Why has it not been referred to the government operations and estimates committee?

[Alain Rayes, Conservative, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Good morning, Mr. Hussen.

Thank you for your presentation. I apologize for being late. I missed the first few minutes.

I have a few questions about Bill C-227, which I would first like to begin by noting is full of good intentions.

I'd like to know why you think a bill like this is likely to have local benefits in the various municipalities and communities across Canada.

[Ahmed Hussen, Liberal, York South—Weston, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair, and members of the committee.

It's quite an honour to be here in front of you to present my private member's bill, Bill C-227, an act to amend the Department of Public Works and Government Services Act (community benefit).

Community benefits are defined as the social or economic benefits that a particular community obtains from a federal infrastructure project above and beyond the project.

Now that I've defined that, the next step I'd like to take is to address some of the myths that have emerged regarding this bill.

It is a myth that my bill will increase red tape, and that this will be borne by small and medium-sized enterprises. Bill C-227 speeds up the approval process. Once the community is engaged, and it can identify the benefits emanating from an infrastructure project, then they are more likely to get behind the project, thus speeding up the approval process.

It is also a myth that business groups and organizations are opposed to Bill C-227. The Toronto board of trade, the Vancouver board of trade, and the Montreal area board of trade have all identified and endorsed community benefit agreements as good economic policy and as a great way to tackle youth unemployment, as well as to include marginalized groups that are not included in the construction industry.

It is also a myth that there was no adequate consultations regarding Bill C-227.

I consulted extensively across Canada. The groups and stakeholders I talked to include, but are not limited to, the United Way, the Toronto Community Benefits Network, the Atkinson Foundation, the Mowat Centre, Canada’s Building Trades Unions, Hassan Yussuff and the Canadian Labour Congress, the Carpenters Union, the Province of Ontario, the City of Vancouver, the British Columbia, Alberta, and Manitoba building trades, and many others.

The Mowat Centre and the Atkinson Foundation have jointly published numerous studies that stress the importance of community benefit agreements.

I've also consulted other levels of government in many provinces across Canada. Having said that, the consultation process is ongoing, and I have already planned many meetings to continue to consult widely on Bill C-227.

It is also a myth that this bill will make it an obligation on provinces to include community benefit agreements in their infrastructure plans. This bill only applies to federal construction and repair projects. Furthermore, Ontario has already enshrined community benefits in their provincial legislation, namely with Bill C-6, and other provinces have had community benefit projects on an ad hoc basis without a legislative framework.

It is also a myth that this bill will introduce delays in the approval process for new development. This will just be another box on the form that asks, “Will this project have community benefits, and what will they be?”

Now I will give you some case studies. According to a joint report from the Mowat Centre and the Atkinson Foundation, the Government of Canada, the Province of Ontario, and the City of Toronto, for example, together have spent over $23.5 billion per year procuring goods and services, including construction.

Just imagine, ladies and gentlemen, how communities would thrive if even a portion of that had community benefit agreements tied to it. We could deliver more training, apprenticeships, and local jobs. Local businesses would thrive.

Community benefit agreements have been used for years in the United States and in the United Kingdom. There are great examples in our own country that highlight the benefit of community benefit agreements.

In Canada, there is the 2010 Olympic winter games' Southeast False Creek Olympic village. This community benefit agreement was formed to create opportunities for local low-income residents and businesses over the inner city in the areas of training and acquisition of goods and services.

In the Waneta expansion project, the Columbia Power Corporation signed a community benefit agreement with the Ktunaxa Nation Council for this project in B.C., which includes provisions for assistance to the community in small hydro development.

In my own riding of York South–Weston, and in many ridings across the city of Toronto, the Eglinton crosstown LRT project has a community benefit agreement to provide benefits to disadvantaged communities through equitable hiring practices, training, apprenticeships, and local supplier and social procurement opportunities, where possible.

Other provinces, such as Nova Scotia, Quebec, and Manitoba, are either exploring or have already moved towards implementation of a form of community benefit agreements.

In the United States, Los Angeles was one of the first successful pioneers of incorporating community benefit agreements. Since 2001, organizations in this city have negotiated several community benefit agreements, which range from living wage requirements to investments in parks and recreation.

In the United Kingdom, in 2012 they enacted the Public Services (Social Value) Act to promote social benefits through public sector procurement. According to the act, a commissioning authority must consider how the purchase “might improve the economic, social and environmental well-being of the relevant area”, where everyone can get a slice of the development pie.

Madam Chair, this bill is modelled on existing legislation of the Province of Ontario, namely Bill 6. The beauty of this, though, is that through our consultations, we were able to see what is working and what is not working with this Ontario piece of legislation.

Bill C-227 addresses the concern regarding implementation and measurement of outcomes, in two ways. First, it empowers the Minister of Public Works and Government Services to require bidders on government-funded projects to explain the community benefits that the project will provide and deliver an assessment as to whether that project has indeed provided the community benefits. It also requires the minister to report back to Parliament every year on what community benefits have been delivered. Community benefit agreements are also in line with the government's priorities and mandate items, such as procurement modernization and promotion of social infrastructure.

I'm asking my colleagues on this committee for their support of my private member's bill, Bill C-227. Help me to enable communities across Canada to benefit from federally funded infrastructure projects.

I was elected to Parliament to represent my riding, and my role is to ensure that I propose and push for legislation that will benefit my constituents. Bill C-227 does exactly that, by dramatically increasing the local economic impact of federally funded infrastructure projects.

Colleagues, let us move forward on this initiative that will not only benefit my riding, your constituents, but communities all across the country. Thank you.

[The Chair (Hon. Judy A. Sgro (Humber River—Black Creek, Lib.)), Liberal, Judy Sgro]

I call to order the meeting of the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities. This is the 42nd Parliament.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Wednesday, October 5, 2016, Bill C-227, an act to amend the Department of Public Works and Government Services Act (community benefit), is before us, as referred by the House.

We will now turn it over to Ahmed Hussen, if you could please brief us on the bill.

[Ryan Gibson, Board President, Canadian Community Economic Development Network]

This summer the government announced its inclusive innovation agenda, and we're pleased to see that the objectives included making Canada a leader in promoting social enterprise. On that topic, I wish to recognize the report published last year by the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities under the chairing of Mr. McColeman, which remains an extremely valuable road map for social finance and social enterprise in Canada.

We applaud Innovation, Science and Economic Development's recent creation of a directory of Canadian social enterprises and the definition they have established for that. Now specific measures related to social procurement and community benefit agreements, in addition to what is proposed in Bill C-227, could go a long way to creating a more favourable environment for social enterprises to develop, but our primary recommendation is to level the playing field for social enterprises when it comes to access to business development programs.

We strongly encourage the government to expand the capacity and access to existing SME services through the Canada Business Network and to other federal business development programs to enhance business supports and readiness for investment by social enterprises, co-operatives, and non-profits. This should be coupled with an awareness-raising effort for government officials to ensure a level playing field for alternative forms of incorporation.

The transition to a clean, low-carbon economy offers excellent local investment opportunities for urban, rural, and remote communities to enhance their resilience and contribute to economic growth that distributes socio-economic benefits. Community-based projects inspire a new kind of social entrepreneurship, building a strong social licence for clean technologies and empowering local citizens, especially indigenous peoples, with the opportunity to reinvest clean energy project returns into local infrastructure, education, and health. This would involve including criteria in new infrastructure investment that prioritize funding for clean energy projects in communities vulnerable to climate change and making affordable financing available to communities and project developers through the Canada infrastructure bank, including federal loan guarantees.

The Prime Minister's mandate letters instructed ministers Duclos and Mihychuk to develop a national strategy on social innovation and social finance. At the Global Social Economy Forum in Montreal last month, Minister Duclos announced the creation of a steering committee to guide that strategy. This is an excellent and essential first step. In dynamic, emerging fields like social innovation, an approach often called co-construction here in Quebec is the only way it can work. We encourage the government to adequately resource the development of the strategy and the sector partners that are required to participate in a meaningful dialogue.

It's fitting that this is the week of co-operatives and that we're sitting here talking about these initiatives.

Thank you very much.

National Strategy for Safe Disposal of Lamps Containing Mercury Act

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer—Mountain View, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-238, an act respecting the development of a national strategy for the safe disposal of lamps containing mercury, put forward by the member for Dartmouth—Cole Harbour.

I was pleased to listen to the member for Hull—Aylmer, and I have had a chance to speak him on numerous occasions. He did bring back a few of the things that I remember when these light bulbs first started coming into discussion, and how we would have young children trying to sell these to their parents in a fundraiser so we could save the environment.

Of course, there are some unintended consequences that happen, and this is certainly one of those. We recognize what the base metal included in this can actually do. We have so many other issues with rare earth metals that are needed, for batteries, for windmills, and for solar devices. Again, there are unintended consequences, but we have to make sure we understand what all of that will do.

I am glad that the member has put forward a bill that builds on our previous Conservative government's actions to control mercury in our environment. I would also acknowledge my colleague from Abbotsford and the official opposition critic for the environment and climate change for his work on environmental issues. Bill C-238 would provide the opportunity for the House to work in a bipartisan manner, to not only pass the legislation but to kick-start the process of raising awareness and educating Canadians on the safe disposal of light bulbs containing mercury.

Most Canadians are aware of the dangers of not having a proper disposal procedure for the highly toxic substances like mercury. In 2010, our Conservative government put forth a strategy for proper mercury disposal, and, in 2013, we negotiated the Minamata Convention on Mercury, an international convention that essentially calls for tough measures to reduce mercury emissions.

Supporting Bill C-238 is in line with our previous Conservative government's approach to controlling toxic substances that pose a risk to human health. This same approach made me proud to stand with my colleagues when our previous government passed the Canada Consumer Product Safety Act, in 2010, banning the use of bisphenol A in baby bottles. I want to stress the importance of all such initiatives.

In the bill, we discuss the effects of mercury, which has the ability, as was mentioned, to be spread between water, air, and soil. Contaminations can have a catastrophic impact on our environment, and the health of all Canadians. We know that mercury is toxic and that it is related to various health problems, including birth defects, rashes, and even death. Even in lower quantities, when mercury is accumulated, it creates a significant risk to our most vulnerable.

Products containing mercury are in our landfills. We know that through this disposal method, mercury has the potential to leak into our soils and water sources. Most Canadians would agree that it is something that must be dealt with.

We, as parliamentarians, have a duty to make sure that our work also creates the right circumstances for us to protect our environment for future generations and ensure a sustainable and prosperous future for our children and grandchildren.

The bill calls for the environment minister to develop and implement a plan or proposal for the safe disposal of lamps containing mercury. I know that the people in my constituency of Red Deer—Mountain View, and all Canadians, will welcome our efforts to minimize the presence of mercury in our immediate environment and put a stop to the negative health risks that come along with it.

Bill C-238 contains three essential elements: the establishment of national standards for the safe disposal of mercury-containing lamps, the establishment of guidelines regarding facilities for safe disposal, and the creation of a plan to promote public awareness of the importance of those lamps being disposed of safely.

The bill also requires that the strategy be tabled in Parliament within two years of royal assent, and that a review and evaluation of that strategy takes place every five years afterwards. The Liberal government can implement, through regulation and policy, and by working with provincial counterparts, the three elements proposed in Bill C-238 at any time. There is a way to make things more efficient, but with a Liberal government in place, Canadians would not be surprised with delays and unnecessary costs being the result of its actions.

My colleague from Abbotsford has looked at a few similar pieces of legislation to this one that have already been presented in the House. Two such red-tape legislative instruments have been put forward. First, Motion No. 45 required that all infrastructure projects at the municipal level over $500 million in value would have to go through a full climate change impact analysis to determine what the upstream and downstream greenhouse gas emission implications would be of those projects. Second, Bill C-227 would place a requirement on contractors for projects within the federal realm.

The member who has brought forward Bill C-227 suggests that projects at the municipal level originally chosen because they meet the current need of municipalities and provinces would henceforth primarily be selected through a lens of their climate change implications. This would impose additional costs on our local governments and additional red tape and delays. For example, if a building contractor wanted to bid on a federal building project, the contractor would have to go through a community benefit analysis, adding additional costs and more red tape for projects because that would have to be built into the bid price. On top of that, it would complicate the federal bidding process by adding more red tape to the process, when in fact these projects should be bid-based on best value for taxpayer dollars or, in other words, best value for the best price.

In a way, I am somewhat skeptical about Bill C-238. Would it be another example of the Liberals over-reaching and ultimately adding additional costs to taxpayers? As much as the motives behind these initiatives are commendable, they are duplicative and would pose additional regulatory burdens on Canadians. That is my fear with this and with most any Liberal strategy.

The member could have moved forward by simply asking the government to enact the necessary regulations through robust consultation with the provinces and municipalities to provide the appropriate recycling and disposal policies across the country. For whatever reason, the member did not do that. We can deal with dangerous toxic waste like mercury now. That essential task is something the government can do now even without this bill. The Liberal government can move forward right now with regulations that set the standards and guidelines for safe disposal of these lamps. The government has the ability to make the public aware of these standards and guidelines.

Our caveat about the bill is the fear that it would lead to the Liberals actually calling for a national strategy, which would take far too long to conclude and create additional initiatives that would come with higher costs, higher taxes, and more red tape. There are many provincial jurisdictions that have programs in place, and by simply working with them we can achieve great results without adding any unnecessary hoops.

When it comes to important issues like emissions targets, research and development investments, infrastructure, and increases in health care funding, the Liberals are quite content to use evidence-based policies from the former Conservative government. While we expect them to refresh these initiatives with some Liberal red paint, unfortunately the overall Liberal program also comes with a massive amount of red ink for future generations.

In this case, making sure that mercury-containing lamps are safely disposed of is something that everyone should support. We should also do the right thing and make sure that our proposed solutions are efficient and, most importantly, effective.

I support taking this to committee in the hope that it will establish national standards for the safe disposal of mercury-containing lamps, guidelines regarding facilities for safe disposal, and create a plan to promote public awareness of the importance of such lamps being disposed of safely. I look forward to a process that will be cost efficient and does not impose an additional undue tax burden on Canadian taxpayers, nor add additional red tape that would tie up businesses, provinces, and municipalities.

Department of Public Works and Government Services Act

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at second reading stage of Bill C-227, under private members' business.

The House resumed from September 30 consideration of the motion that Bill C-227, An Act to amend the Department of Public Works and Government Services Act (community benefit), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Ahmed Hussen, Liberal, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise today to speak to my private member's bill, Bill C-227, an act to amend the Department of Public Works and Government Services Act, regarding community benefits.

Community benefits are defined as the benefits obtained by a community, above and beyond the infrastructure project itself. These include but are not limited to local job creation, paid training, affordable housing, green space, or any other benefit identified by the community itself.

My colleagues have brought forward some concerns regarding the bill in today's debate, and previously. I would like to address some of them.

It is, in fact, a myth that the bill would increase red tape and increase costs for small- and medium-sized businesses. It is not true. In fact, Bill C-227 would speed up the approval process, thereby, saving money for small and medium-sized businesses. When communities have been consulted on the kinds of benefits that they would like from an infrastructure project and can see those benefits being obtained from an infrastructure project, they are more likely to support the development process and speed up the approval process for new development.

It is also a myth that business groups and other organizations oppose Bill C-227. In fact, the Toronto board of trade, the Vancouver board of trade, the Montreal board of trade, and many other organizations have come out strongly for community benefit agreements as a good way, as a good economic policy, to tackle youth unemployment and to deal with the issue of including marginalized groups that are not included in the construction industry.

It is also a complete myth that Bill C-227 did not receive adequate consultation. The fact is that I have consulted extensively on the bill all across the country. The groups that I have spoken with include, but are not limited to, the United Way, the Toronto Community Benefits Network, the Atkinson Foundation, the Mowat Centre, Canada's Building Trades Union, the Canadian Labour Congress, the Carpenters' Union, the Province of Ontario, the City of Vancouver, and many others.

The Mowat Centre and the Atkinson Foundation have jointly published numerous studies that have stressed the importance of community benefit agreements for local economic growth. I have consulted all levels of government in the provinces across Canada. Having said that, my consultation process is ongoing. I have already planned many meetings across the country to ensure that I continue to consult widely on Bill C-227.

The bill is modelled on Ontario legislation, Bill C-6. The beauty of that is that we are able to now understand what has worked and what is not working with the Ontario legislation. As such, for example, Bill C-227 would address the concern about implementation and measurement of outcomes. It would do so in two ways.

First, the bill would empower the Minister of Public Services and Procurement to demand from contractors to demonstrate what they think the community benefits would be from an infrastructure project, and to demand an assessment after the completion of the project, to see whether those benefits were indeed delivered. Second, it would also require the minister to report back to Parliament once a year to show how the community benefited from various select building and repair projects.

Community benefit agreements are also in line with our government's priorities, including procurement modernization and social infrastructure promotion.

I am asking my colleagues from all sides of the House to support the bill, Bill C-227. Help me to enable communities all across Canada to benefit from building and repair projects.

I was elected to Parliament to represent York South—Weston, to push and propose legislation that would benefit my constituents. Bill C-227 would do exactly that, by dramatically improving the economic local impact that infrastructure has in local communities across Canada.

This would help York South—Weston and many other communities across this great country.

[Brigitte Sansoucy, NDP, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, agreements on community benefits are definitely vectors of social and economic development at the local level. Today, it seems that creating such agreements is a progressive idea and an opportunity that we should seize.

I would like to say that I will be supporting this bill at second reading stage.

The NDP believes that we must promote local growth, training and employment by increasing investments in public infrastructure and promoting agreements on community benefits.

This government promised Canadians that there would be change. I am pleased to see today that they are finally getting down to work. The Liberals promised to make massive investments in infrastructure, among other things. We are still waiting.

Agreements on community benefits would stimulate growth, employment, and economic and social development not just in my riding, but in all ridings. In Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, there are a number of major infrastructure projects waiting for federal funding.

I want to talk about a large-scale infrastructure project, the Casavant Boulevard extension in Saint-Hyacinthe, that I would like to see covered by this kind of agreement. Having served six years as a city councillor, I am sure everyone in Saint-Hyacinthe knows what I am talking about. The project involves building a rail overpass. It is vital to the city's economic development because it will open up the industrial park. Believe it or not, we have been waiting for federal funding for this project for 10 years.

The Casavant Boulevard extension is critical to Saint-Hyacinthe's growth and development. The federal government must act quickly and decisively on this file so that we can build this road infrastructure. The Casavant Boulevard extension is well suited to a community benefit agreement. It would be an opportunity to create good jobs, make training available, and revitalize the local economy. It would certainly stimulate growth, help create wealth, and contribute to more responsible development.

While I have no doubt this would benefit my riding, I am skeptical about the implementation and the scope of such agreements.

I think that this bill could be improved in several ways. In my riding, it is important to support local businesses. Saint-Hyacinthe is known around the world for being an agrifood technocity. The development of its local businesses would definitely stimulate the economy, create jobs, and promote growth and innovation in my region. That would create a ripple effect. We all know that when our businesses are successful, our economy does well too.

What the NDP wants is to include local organizations, regional businesses, and members of the community in the planning process for infrastructure spending. We want to ensure that they enjoy the benefits and spinoffs that this spending creates. That seems like common sense to us.

However, this bill does not require bidders to provide all the information about the project to the various stakeholders. In my opinion, that is vital information. This bill also does not specify how the intended benefits will be calculated. It also does not mention the objectives of these agreements.

We believe that a targeted recruitment policy must be included in the bill so that members of the community and local organizations and businesses are not forgotten. What is more, as my hon. colleague, the sponsor of this bill mentioned, the purpose of these community benefit agreements is to “create community wealth, quality jobs, training, responsible growth, and a healthier environment”.

These are honourable goals. However, how can we be sure that they will be implemented if they are not even mentioned in the legislation? I suggest that the legislation include guiding principles that emphasize equity, community involvement, eco-friendly practices, and support for disadvantaged groups.

I would also like to come back to a small, but significant word. I am talking about the word “may” in clause 2 of the bill. This small word makes a big difference. Clause 2 of the bill reads:

The Minister may, before awarding a contract for the construction, maintenance or repair of public works, federal real property or federal immovables, require bidders on the proposal to provide information on the community benefits that the project will provide.

Why the word “may” and not the word “shall”? In other words, the requirement on community benefits that the project will provide is left to the discretion of the minister.

There is no guarantee that these agreements to include community benefits will in fact be implemented. I think if we really want to make a difference and generate wealth locally, we should not leave that to the discretion of the minister. If we truly wanted communities to benefit, we would establish clear structures and avoid the kind of ambiguity that we see here.

We want the goals of community benefit agreements to be an explicit part of the Minister of Infrastructure and Communities's mandate. Otherwise, there would be no requirement for the government to report on the success or failure of the policy.

I am trying to believe in the legislation, and I want it to become a reality for our regions. However, when I consider the conditions of the trans-Pacific partnership, I cannot help but be pessimistic about it. When my honourable colleague introduced the bill in the House, he said, “a similar piece of legislation in Ontario, Bill 6, has survived trade agreements.”

Bill C-227 must do more than survive trade agreements. Chapter 15 of the trans-Pacific partnership does not state whether bid criteria such as those in community benefit agreements would be considered a trade barrier. If that were the case, the bill could expose Canada to trade challenges

The government has bulldozed straight ahead to ratify this trade agreement. It is clear that the government will definitely limit preferences regarding government procurement at an international level. Let us also not forget that a similar piece of legislation in Ontario, Bill 6, has never been in force at the same time as the trans-Pacific partnership. It if survives, I have to wonder what will become of it once that agreement comes into effect.

It seems to me that the bill requires a number of changes before this initiative can become a reality, despite its goal to support vulnerable populations while working on development.

As I said, we do not want this bill to be a missed opportunity. These kinds of community benefit agreements need to become a reality. It is our duty to provide our regions and our constituents with meaningful social and economic development opportunities.

Let us work on creating jobs at a local level. Through these agreements, let us create a generation of qualified workers to build a talent pool for our industries, as recommended by Canada's Building Trades Unions and the National Construction Labour Relations Alliance. Let us stimulate economic growth in our regions. Let us encourage social and economic development in our ridings and our regions.

Let us work together to make our regional economies models of development.

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciated my colleague's speech on Bill C-227, the community benefits bill. Like my colleague, I too was a city councillor, having spent nine years with the City of Barrie before being elected to this wonderful institution.

It is my honour to rise on behalf of the residents of Barrie—Innisfil today and speak to Bill C-227, a bill brought forward with all the best intentions. In my opinion, and I say this with all due respect to the member for York South—Weston, it fails in the reality of what he may be trying to propose here.

The bill deals with federal infrastructure projects but does not stray far from the process for municipal projects that many here in the House are familiar with. There are 77 members of the House who have municipal political experience; 36 of those members are of the government.

The planning process goes through many different phases, from determining a need to the drawing up of an idea, the drafting of the building rationale, and the production of the plans. Each of my 76 colleagues who have served locally know that red tape cannot be added to ensure a community benefit.

In the process of a project, there's always the discussion of the benefit that a new project is going to bring to the community, and that really starts at the beginning. If it is a new LRT plan, it is to increase transit ridership, new roads mean goods move faster, waste-water systems mean safer water, and housing funding means affordable housing.

What does Bill C-227 mean for federal employees who fall under this? Has their work managing federal infrastructure projects been subpar? Have the women and men of PWGSC been operating under the guise that there's no such thing as a community benefit? There's always a community benefit, and our federal departments are always working with the needs and the benefits of Canadians.

When the Minister of Infrastructure and Communities announced funding for municipal projects, he stated on May 5, 2016:

...we also respect the ability of the local governments to make their own decisions.

Does the member for York South—Weston naturally assume that he does not feel the same for federal employees and our provincial partners? Let us be clear, the bill aims to add red tape and bureaucracy to a process that already has safeguards built into it.

The bill intends to add three new reporting mechanisms to every federal infrastructure project. The first stage of the new reporting will come in pre-attribution. This is a repetition of the work being done from the start of an idea: the determining of a need, the benefits of the project, and the benefits of the community the project will serve. Will these proposed projects not come under the watchful eye of the public during consultations? Is this step of a pre-attribution report nothing more than a repeat of the project application process?

I have been a part of many public consultations in the city of Barrie. The public in these consultations have a keen eye for the community benefit of each and every project. Our residents can see waste a mile away. There is no need for a new step in the beginning to determine if a funding project is a worthwhile endeavour by the government.

The second new mandated report will take place during a project, with ongoing reporting during the works of the project. The most common reasons for increased costs of construction are delays. Delays are deadly to the life cycle of a project. It costs the project manager, construction company, inspectors, and the federal government.

The life cycle of a project has milestones, and these milestones and the timeline in these milestones are watched and mitigated by the project handlers themselves. These milestone reports form much of the reporting after completion. It will be difficult to determine just how community benefits are being met during construction. Time is money. Bill C-227 will add time and money to the cost of every federal project at a time when many feel we take too long to complete a project today.

Let me now address the third proposed mandatory reporting requirement after the project is complete. This is perhaps the only real beneficial step in what is being proposed in this bill. We do need to find accountability in the work that is being done and funded by Canadians. Gaps found in a post-evaluation can be addressed for future projects. However, this does not need to be mandated. In the world of project management, a post-completion review is part of a current rigorous process. Why entrench it further when there is no need to?

This bill requires that we add some very important questions addressing red flag concerns. Where will the costs of the extra work be covered? Will it come from within the department's budget? Will the red tape be paid for by project funding received by the very same minister who is asking for the review? Will there be a need to hire to meet the new expanded reporting demands that this bill creates? The current government is starting to sound like the Government of Ontario and becoming a leading new hire employer. The private sector, not the government, should be leading with job creation. Will the government be forced to hire to cover the extra workload? These are all fair questions.

When the Prime Minister was gearing up for the election, he spoke at the FCM conference in Edmonton in June of 2015. He stated:

We will make it easier for municipalities to get shovels in the ground by removing the requirement that virtually every project must go through...that too often results in unilateral federal decisions.

The Prime Minister went on to say:

And we will make sure that that investment gets to you when you need it, not when it’s politically convenient for the federal government to send it your way.

He concluded his speech by proclaiming to municipal leaders:

I want you to know that with the right partner in Ottawa, you will have real partnership with Ottawa. A partner that respects your experience—

—that is, who respects municipalities' experiences.

Does this statement exclude federal departments? Does the trust the Prime Minister has in municipalities not extend to the hard-working men and women of our public service? Additional bureaucracy does not send a message of trust. Rather, it says that we need to watch you a little more closely.

As the member for Spadina—Fort York once wrote in a blog post in May 2015, when he was a member of Parliament for the old Toronto riding of Trinity—Spadina:

Unlike complex funding programmes, direct revenue does not require a new ministry or massive bureaucracy for oversight.

We believe in the transparency of government, but we do not believe that we need to add more regulations and rules to it.

In closing, I, along with 76 other colleagues in House, including 36 from the government side, know all too well the red tape and bureaucracy that exists in getting projects completed from idea to the completion of construction. The last thing needed is another level of red tape and the threat of a federal ministerial review for community benefits that have already been proven at their local level. We would not accept this at the municipal level.

As a resident of Ontario, I have witnessed first hand the wasted tax dollars and the effect of over 300,000-plus regulations by the McGuinty and Wynne Liberals. My fear is that the federal Liberals are taking us down the same path at the national level. Why should we accept that at the federal level?

[Terry Sheehan, Liberal, Sault Ste. Marie, ON]

Mr. Speaker, today I speak in favour of Bill C-227, the community benefits agreement.

As the member for Sault Ste. Marie, I campaigned on historic infrastructure investments of $125 billion over 10 years. I strongly believe that if the government wants to, investments will have important impacts on regions and communities, and the bill will have that effect.

Bill C-227 will amend section 20 of the Department of Public Works and Government Services Act to include provisions that will give the minister the flexibility to require bidders on federal projects to include information on community benefits of said projects for the local community.

For the purposes of the bill, the community benefit agreements are defined as social or economic benefits the community obtains from a public works project. These benefits can include local job creation and training opportunities, improvement of public spaces within the community, and any other specific benefits identified by the community.

It is a bill modelled on existing legislation in the province of Ontario, which was implemented earlier this month and is a great fit with this government's priorities.

In my riding of Sault Ste. Marie, the steel industry, including companies like Essar Steel Algoma and Tenaris Algoma Tubes are plagued with challenges. Global overcapacity and weak demand have put these domestic steel producers in jeopardy and are threatening the livelihoods of many people and their families. Many have already been laid off. Good-paying jobs in northern Ontario are hard to come by.

As a former city councillor and someone who has worked in economic development in Sault Ste. Marie and northern Ontario for many years, I know that economic development, diversification, and investments in key infrastructure projects are more important today than ever.

In fact, Sault Ste. Marie's unemployment rate over the last few years has been in the double digits. Investment in infrastructure in Bill C-227, in combination, will work to ensure that the historic investments our government is delivering have direct impacts that will leverage the existing skills and expertise of local businesses and individuals in my riding and in ridings across this country.

As someone who has worked in training and with the trades, it is my hope that, once passed, this legislation will also lead to more opportunities to train and develop a skilled workforce.

CBAs are a new approach to empowering local communities to partner with developers to respond to local challenges, and through encouraging activities like training, can lead to economic development and growth, poverty reduction, and environmental sustainability in neighbourhoods across Canada.

Canadians, in particular, are struggling economically and need a boost. Our government is working to deliver on a procurement and modernization agenda, and the constituents of my riding, like many others, want the Government of Canada to step up to the plate, after years of neglect, to ensure that Canadians are not left behind.

I think of an example in my riding of community benefits that our first nations partners put in place many years ago. We should look to our first nations as leaders in developing community benefits. When we added lanes to Highway 17 that ran through my riding a few years ago, the first nation of Garden River said they would like to see some community benefits, and they listed a number of things, including employment of Garden River people, training, use of local aggregates, and subcontracting with local businesses.

I think we could learn a lesson from our first nation friends that this is a good thing. It really helped Garden River. I know that Chief Paul Syrette is a leader in this area and will continue to be.

I have been able to speak with the mayor of Sault Ste. Marie, Christian Provenzano, and with many city councillors, and they believe that this is a good thing that will really help our economy, which has been struggling over the last few years.

The Government of Canada has an opportunity to work directly with many communities across this area to dictate these community benefits.

I will use the example of some tradespeople who came to my area to get certification so they could work. They were not from the community. They were not even from northern Ontario, Ontario, Quebec, British Columbia, or Alberta. They were from the United States. Sault Ste. Marie is on the border of America, and they had come to work. I have nothing against my American cousins, but when the government spends infrastructure monies, they should direct them to community benefits.

I said that the economy in my riding had been suffering over the last few years and it was an opportunity for other tradespeople from Sault Ste. Marie, northern Ontario, or across the country to work, but they did not. Those are just two anecdotal examples where community benefits in play have helped a community like Garden River and when community benefits were not in play, there was a bit of seepage, so to speak.

Our government has also invested greatly in infrastructure spending in my area, and there are many federal projects that could be invested in and expanded upon. This gives the minister the ability to work with local communities.

I would be remiss if I did not thank the member for York South—Weston for introducing this great bill and for his hard work. I know he has gone from coast to coast across the country, talking with many businesses, labour organizations, communities, community leaders, and organizations. I will not steal his thunder as I know he will speak later, but there were very positive results from those consultations and hard work. My hat goes off to the member for York South—Weston, who has been working very hard.

This is really important. It is a critical time for us to invest in infrastructure and get the economy going. It is of utmost importance, not just for my generation but our children's generation. My daughter Kate Sheehan is visiting Ottawa today on a professional development day. We have to think about what her future will look like in Sault Ste. Marie and Canada.

I am very pleased that we can dictate the community benefits that will help the riding of Sault Ste. Marie and the surrounding area. The people from Batchewana First Nation are going to have opportunities, as well as Prince Township, Heyden, and Searchmont. There are untold opportunities, and this is just the beginning.

We could look at this to see how we could expand it to have more impact. Our historic spending of $125 billion over 10 years is absolutely remarkable. Of course, the spending is important to the steel industry because infrastructure projects use steel. Being the co-chair of the steel caucus, I recognize there are plenty of opportunities for us to have steel in our infrastructure program. I know it will be extremely beneficial for places like Sault Ste. Marie, northern Ontario, Ontario, and the rest of Canada.

I cannot stress enough that, after talking with local community leaders, they are totally looking forward to announcements. I am looking forward to making announcements in the future in my riding and working with community leaders to prioritize which infrastructure projects they believe are important. Not only that, but we should engage them again and ask how we can benefit their communities more, get people working, get people into the trades, and get local contractors working on these infrastructure programs.

I again thank the member for York South—Weston. It is an honour to co-second the bill.

The House resumed from May 11 consideration of the motion that Bill C-227, An Act to amend the Department of Public Works and Government Services Act (community benefit), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

National Strategy for Safe Disposal of Lamps Containing Mercury Act

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am grateful to my colleague on the environment committee for bringing forward this initiative. I think he would admit that this legislation builds on our previous Conservative government's actions to control mercury within our environment in Canada.

A lot of Canadians do not realize that Canada does not mine mercury. Canada is arguably the richest country in the world when it comes to natural resources, but mining mercury is not one of those activities. Ninety-five per cent of all the mercury deposited in Canada comes from foreign sources, which is why our former Conservative government was active in negotiating the Minamata Convention on Mercury, an international convention that essentially calls for tough measures to reduce mercury emissions. That was in 2013.

In November 2014, we followed that up with the products containing mercury regulations, which essentially prohibit the broad import and manufacture of products containing mercury, with limited exemptions. These regulations are expected to reduce by somewhere in the order of 21 tonnes the mercury that will be emitted into our environment between 2015 and 2032.

I appreciate the member's effort to build upon our previous government's work. This is important. The work we do at committee is not only about the environment but about sustainability, the long-term balancing of the environment with our economic objectives. We want to make sure that, as the Liberal government has said so often and as we used to say, the environment and the economy have to go hand in hand.

Some of the measures we are undertaking at the environment committee include a study, which we have now completed, on the Federal Sustainable Development Act. We are undertaking right now a study on conservation, which includes parkland and marine conservation areas. We are also undertaking a review of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. All of these serve Canada's interests to make sure that, as we move forward, we continue to make our environment safer, cleaner, and healthier for Canadians to live in.

Bill C-238, a national strategy for the safe disposal of lamps containing mercury, contains three elements. The first would establish national standards for the safe disposal of mercury-containing lamps. The second would establish guidelines regarding facilities for safe disposal of these lamps. The third would create a plan to promote public awareness of the importance of safe disposal of these kinds of lamps. Right now these lamps end up in our landfills, and the mercury leaches into our soil and our water sources. Virtually all Canadians would agree that is something we do not want to see happen.

This bill attempts to establish a strategy. I would ask the member why we need a national strategy. As our former Conservative government moved forward to address the presence of mercury within our environment, we acted. We did not simply establish strategies and talk shops where we prolonged any action on these measures, but we acted. We signed the Minamata Convention. We moved forward with regulations on mercury and mercury emissions. We do not need a formal strategy to get this done. The Liberal government has within its full power the ability to move forward with its own legislation and to move forward with its own regulations and policies that would build upon the work that our former Conservative government did in this area.

Some national strategies that have been presented are worthwhile, especially the ones addressing many of the health challenges still present in Canada. However a strategy is simply a call to develop a plan, whereas moving forward with action goes to the very substance of what we hope to achieve.

The bill would also require this strategy to be tabled in the House within two years and then reviewed every five years to make sure it is in keeping with new strategies for the disposal of mercury-containing lamps.

By the way, I am going to support this bill going to committee, because I want to continue to build on the work that the previous Conservative government achieved, to make sure we continue to clean up our environment of mercury contamination. However, the challenge is to make sure any initiative or strategy is cost efficient and does not impose additional undue tax burden on Canadian taxpayers or red tape that ties up businesses, provinces, and municipalities.

The member actually admitted in his opening comments that the provinces and municipalities are implicated in this strategy. Much of the work and cost in implementing this strategy would actually be done at the provincial and municipal levels, which is where these recycling and disposal facilities would be located. Conservatives, of course, are always concerned with what kinds of additional costs will be imposed on Canadians.

As a Conservative government, we were very proud of a record of having reduced Canada's tax burden to the lowest level in over 50 years, and Canadians welcomed that. They do not want to pay more taxes, but they understand that we want to keep our environment clean.

I looked at a few pieces of legislation similar to this one that have already been presented in the House and to which I had a chance to speak. Motion No. 45 required that all infrastructure projects at the municipal level that are over $500 million in value would have to go through a full climate change impact analysis to determine what the upstream and downstream greenhouse gas emission implications would be for those projects.

The member who brought this private member's bill forward suggested that projects at the municipal level, chosen to meet the needs of municipalities and provinces, would actually be seen through a lens of climate change rather than for the purposes for which those projects were being built and planned. This would impose huge additional costs on our local governments, additional red tape, and delays, and it would discourage the municipalities from moving forward with critical infrastructure in their communities.

The same thing was true for Bill C-227, a private member's bill, which would place a requirement on contractors for projects within the federal realm. In other words, if a building contractor wanted to bid on a federal building project, the contractor would have to go through a community benefit analysis. On top of all the other red tape government has already imposed on those wishing to do business with government, it now wants an additional community benefit analysis, which again would add additional costs, more red tape, and increased costs of projects, because that would have to be built into the bid price.

On top of that, it would complicate the federal bidding process, by adding more and more red tape to the process, when in fact these projects should be bid based on best value for the taxpayers' dollar, or in other words, the best value for the best price. Therefore, Conservatives have a right to be skeptical about the bill before us. Is it going to be another example of Liberals' overreaching, adding additional cost to taxpayers?

In both of these cases, of course, as much as the motives behind these initiatives are laudable, the motion and this bill would actually pose additional regulatory burdens on Canadians, and that is my fear with this strategy. Quite frankly, the member could have moved forward with simply asking the government to move forward with regulations in consultation with the provinces and municipalities to provide the appropriate recycling and disposal policies across the country. For whatever reason, the member did not do that.

Hopefully, this matter will be fully discussed at committee. I will certainly be asking the member questions about costs, regulatory burdens, and exactly what this would mean for Canadian taxpayers. I look forward to the discussion, and I know the member and I are going to work very closely to make sure this is done in a way that is respectful of taxpayers and also addresses the very real concerns of mercury within our environment.

Department of Public Works and Government Services Act

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am thankful for the opportunity to speak to the bill.

I think we should start by understanding what Bill C-227 would actually do.

It is a classic case of the Liberal government getting its backbenchers to do its dirty work, because we know that the government has already betrayed small businesses in Canada by not reducing the tax rate down to 9%, and the bill before us would impose additional burdens on our small businesses across Canada. Therefore, the Liberals have a private member, one of their backbenchers, bring forward the bill. It provides the Liberal government with plausible deniability. The bill gets passed here in the House, and they blame the House for it rather than themselves. We know what is up.

Essentially, Bill C-227 would allow the minister to require bidders on federal projects to provide information on the community benefits that a federal project would deliver. We have no idea what benefits would be sufficient, which, of course, introduces greater uncertainty into the bidding process.

However, it is not just information that the minister would be able to require. The bill would also empower the minister to demand bidders provide a formal assessment as to whether community benefits have indeed been provided.

Who would conduct this assessment? Is it the minister at his or her discretion? Is it some independent party? What is the threshold or standard that must be met? Is there a value of contract that would be captured? We do not know. Would bidders compete with each other on who could best meet the community-benefit test, or is it whether the appropriate balance between community benefit and value for money has been met? Who makes that decision?

Bill C-227 would turn what is usually an objective process, which is value for money, in other words, getting a project, product, or service at the best price and the best quality, and turns it into a largely subjective determination by the minister. This is another example of a Liberal government overreaching and interfering in matters it should stay out of.

Last week, I spoke to Motion No. 45, which was another Liberal initiative that essentially interfered in the ability of municipalities to do contracting. Now the federal government wants to force every municipality to run every single infrastructure project over $500,000 through an assessment of the greenhouse gas emissions that will be caused both upstream and downstream. Again, it is a horrific cost to municipalities. There are 4,000 of them across Canada, multiply that by two or three projects a year, and think of how much money that is going to cost municipalities across the country.

This is all about layering red tape upon red tape upon red tape, and undermining and underappreciating the value of small businesses to our economy.

As I mentioned, the Liberals have already hammered Canadian small businesses by breaking their promise to lower the small business tax rate to 9%. That was a very clear broken promise. That decision alone is going to cost our businesses somewhere in the order of $2.2 billion over the next five years, resulting in the loss of thousands of jobs across this country. Now they are hammering them with even more government red tape, increasing the cost of doing business, and further discouraging smaller businesses from bidding on government contracts.

The bottom line is that Bill C-227 would hurt small businesses. It would add a massive amount of additional regulation on top of the ones that already exist. It would dissuade small businesses from bidding on government contracts, and it would require small businesses to assess matters other than price and quality, which, of course, will drive up the cost of government and drive up the cost to taxpayers in this country.

Of course, these companies, if they are going to bid, are going to have to build in these additional risk considerations into the price that they bid. We are talking about additional costs to taxpayers across this country.

Then there are, of course, the additional powers that would be given to the minister under the bill. Bill C-227 would expand the minister's discretionary power and allow the minister to unnecessarily politicize the contracting process.

There is no clarity as to when an assessment would be required. It could be in the middle of the contract, after the contract had been let, or maybe after the bids have been received. There is no clarity in the bill at all. It is very broad in scope. It is highly ambiguous. It is vague. It leaves everybody here in the House, the contracting community, the sub-trades, and the workers in the dark.

I asked a question of the proponent of the bill earlier on. Given the fact that he claimed he had broadly consulted on the bill, had he at the very least consulted with the key business organizations across the country that represent small business? I am talking about the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, the Canadian Manufacturers & Exporters, the Canadian Association of Importers and Exporters. The member said that he had consulted with unions across the country. Really. Why not with the businesses themselves that actually pay that price? He said that he had consulted with academics. What about consulting with the very Canadians who would be most impacted by the bill?

The bottom line is this. The bill would do a few things. It would impose an increased burden on our companies. It would impose additional costs on them and uncertainty for small businesses that have already been betrayed by the Liberal government. The bill would also replace what in the past was a clear process, value for money, ensuring we get the best quality at the very best price, with a process that would be unpredictable and highly subjective and dependent upon the discretion of the minister and his or her officials.

In his speech, the sponsor highlighted all of the things the bill intended to achieve. It is clear to anyone who heard the speech that this is about social engineering at significant cost to the taxpayer. The bill would drive up costs to taxpayers to try to achieve some social engineering goals that the Liberal government suggests may be reasonable objectives.

The best response we should have when businesses are contracting with the federal government is to ensure that they understand what the rules are, ensuring Canadian taxpayers get the best value for money.

Then of course the proponent referred to Ontario, of all places, as being the role model of these community benefit agreements. A Liberal government in the province of Ontario has mismanaged the economy so much and has driven that province into such debt that today it has the highest sub-federal cost, the highest sub-federal debt not only within Canada, not only within North America, but in the entire world. Is that a role model we should be following? Absolutely not.

No one should be surprised that the bill is coming from the Liberal side of the House. We can also be certain that Liberals' will find new ways of increasing costs to taxpayers, interfering with the private sector, and clearly giving themselves more and more power over time. On that basis alone we should reject the bill.

I ask the Liberal government, the Liberal members of the House, the NDP members who have highlighted significant shortcomings of the bill, to reconsider their support of the bill, let business do what it does best, which is provide contracts, services, products of the very best quality and at the very best price. By doing so, we would be serving the taxpayers of our country.

[Leona Alleslev, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Services and Procurement]

Madam Speaker, I rise today to support Bill C-227, An Act to amend the Department of Public Works and Government Services Act (community benefit).

To put this bill in context, I would like to take a moment to describe the department governed by that act. Public Service and Procurement Canada serves as a vital foundation for the Canadian government. With the help of over 12,000 hard-working employees across Canada, the department acts as the government's principal treasurer, accountant, and real property manager.

The department's efforts ensure that the government buys what it needs and guarantees that resources are in place for the future. This includes big ticket items, such as military procurement and large information technology systems, as well as other goods and services, such as office supplies, fuel, and translation services.

In total, PSPC manages about $15 billion on behalf of other government departments and agencies. This amounts to over 80% of total federal government procurement.

Not only does this government department buy much of the goods and services for the Government of Canada, we also seek to make these purchases beneficial to communities and businesses across the country. For example, of the $15 billion in procurement the department manages each year, around 40% goes to Canadian small and medium-sized enterprises.

Canada's unprecedented, multi-billion dollar national shipbuilding strategy is also giving rise to accomplishments beyond procurement. In addition to re-establishing a world-class shipbuilding industry, the national shipbuilding strategy is growing our economy, creating jobs for Canadians, and generating apprenticeship programs for indigenous communities and women.

This bill is yet another example of our efforts to make government procurement work for all Canadians. The principles that underpin this private member's bill and its intended objectives are laudable and deserve further study in committee.

I would like to congratulate the member for York South—Weston for his work on this private member's bill. When he introduced the bill, he stated that he would like to empower communities to make development work for them. I think this is something every member of this House can support.

Bill C-227 seeks to amend section 20 of the Department of Public Works and Government Services Act to include a provision stating:

The Minister may, before awarding a contract for the construction, maintenance or repair of public works, federal real property or federal immovables, require bidders on the proposal to provide information on the community benefits that the project will provide.

The bill also requires that:

A contracting party shall, upon request by the Minister, provide the Minister with an assessment as to whether the project has provided community benefits.

The Minister must table an annual report in Parliament assessing whether construction, maintenance, or repair projects have provided community benefit.

Other jurisdictions are starting to move toward an approach that considers community benefits in the context of infrastructure investment. Such approaches generally involve the use of community benefits agreements, which are formal agreements between a real estate agent or infrastructure developer, and a coalition that reflects and represents people who are affected by a large development project.

Community benefit agreements are not in any way a new concept. They have been used for years in the United States, and they were used in the construction of the athletes' village for the Vancouver Olympics.

Last year, Ontario was the first province to include community benefits in provincial infrastructure projects under the Infrastructure for Jobs and Prosperity Act, 2015.

If Bill C-277 is referred to committee, it would be advisable for the committee to examine the experiences of these jurisdictions in more detail and identify the lessons learned that could be applied to federal endeavours in Canada.

When he introduced the bill, the member for York South—Weston also said that community benefit agreements “create community wealth, quality jobs, training, responsible growth, and a healthier environment”.

Once again, these are objectives that every member of the House of Commons should support.

In fact, our government is already taking steps to achieve these objectives. To strengthen the middle class and ensure more inclusive growth for more Canadians, budget 2016 is making historic investments in infrastructure and innovation.

According to the budget, “investing in infrastructure is not just about creating good jobs and economic growth. It's also about building communities that Canadians are proud to call home.”

The mandate letter for the Minister of Public Services and Procurement requires that the minister, “Modernize procurement practices so that they are simpler, less administratively burdensome, deploy modern comptrollership, and include practices that support our economic policy goals, including green and social procurement.”

To achieve these objectives the Department of Public Services and Procurement Canada is working to simplify its contracts, templates, and business processes. This will make it easier for clients to buy the goods and services they need to deliver their programs to Canadians and for suppliers to sell to the government.

The department is acquiring and implementing a new web-based e-procurement solution, which will move the Government of Canada procurement function to an e-business model. This will leverage the best practices of the industry, which will reduce cost and process burden for government departments and agencies, and for suppliers.

Taken together, these initiatives will modernize the Government of Canada procurement function, foster competition, and allow procurement to advance social and green policies for the benefit of Canadians. With this private member's bill, we are taking another step to ensure procurement is socially conscious and community-focused.

To come back to the content of Bill C-227, the bill should be sent to committee, because several parts of it warrant closer attention.

First of all, we need to determine whether the scope of the bill will allow for its own objectives to be fully achieved. For instance, amending section 20 of the Department of Public Works and Government Services Act, in accordance with Bill C-227, would require that community benefits be taken into account for projects led by Public Services and Procurement Canada, whether on its own behalf or on behalf of another department.

Accordingly, the overall impact of the amendments would be limited, because approximately 30% of the federal government's real property is managed by Public Services and Procurement Canada.

Second, we need to look closely at any potential impact the bill could have on international trade agreements. International agreements often impose certain restrictions regarding the requirements that member nations can include in their bid solicitation process. The intentions of Bill C-227 are laudable. Let us send it to committee so that it can be examined in greater detail.

We want procurement to work for all Canadians and the bill would help us do just that.

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague, the member for York South—Weston, for his speech and presentation, and I would like to commend him for introducing his private member's bill, which is an important milestone in the life of a parliamentarian.

As he pointed out in his speech, this is one of the first series of bills being debated, so he had little time to draft it. As a result, I want to raise a few points during my speech today.

Maybe just to remind members, this bill is adding the notion of community benefit along with the already provided capacity to the minister by narrowing the definition of “community benefit” in the public works and government services department. It would expect the bidders to be fulfilling some additional requirements regarding community benefit, if the minister wishes to obtain this information before handing out the contract. It would expect that the minister could ask for a study to the contracted parties so that they can precisely scale of the community benefit generated by the project. There would be an additional step of a report to Parliament after each exercise that would evaluate if the work, repairs, or maintenance generated any community benefit.

Before I comment any further on the bill, I would like to comment on a poll that was done when we talked to businesses in this country. Basically, it says that companies felt that there is too much red tape in Canada already. Sixty-nine per cent of businesses in this country find that there is too much red tape and that it is not helping to create jobs, create wealth, or create a lively community. I think, in particular, of farmers who have to deal with red tape exactly in the middle of their high season.

It is very important, as parliamentarians, when we are tabling new legislation, although well intended—and I do not doubt in any way the intention of the member to increase the benefit of the activity of the government—to make sure that we are not adding an extra layer of administrative tasks to those who are actually responding to the need of the government.

Our party, the Conservative Party, certainly supports transparency within the government and in the federal contracting process. We believe that community interests must be served. We know that, naturally, when contracts are awarded in a region, there are automatically benefits to the economy. It is also important to support local workers. We believe in a neutral, rational contracting process that is advantageous to taxpayers.

That is my concern about Bill C-227 as introduced. It is a sort of double-edged sword, since it would give the minister discretionary authority in the contracting process. When we consider the tens of thousands of contracts that are awarded every year by Public Services and Procurement Canada, this will create a lot of red tape, which I think is completely unnecessary.

Paragraph 7(1)(a) of the Department of Public Works and Government Services Act explains the framework and the various duties or functions of the minister, pursuant to the act. It states that the minister must “[increase] the efficiency and economy of the federal public administration and...[enhance] integrity and efficiency in the contracting process”.

Under these proposals, as we have seen and as I have mentioned, the minister would be able to ask bidders to submit additional reports and would be able to issue a report to Parliament. This translates into many different administrative tasks. It is another step for the bidder, but it also means additional tasks for our public officials, tasks that are unnecessary.

Therefore, in the interest of small and medium-sized businesses, we believe this is unnecessary. I invite my colleague to consider some of the initiatives in place to reduce red tape. Examples from the Government of New Brunswick and others from Quebec come to mind.

My colleague mentioned the Helmets to Hardhats Canada program, an initiative that was led by veterans themselves to facilitate veterans' integration into civil society. He could have mentioned a number of other initiatives that our government brought in to reduce red tape for veterans, including the veterans independence program. We also simplified the process for that program.

Veterans no longer have any paperwork to fill out for that program. In the past, they had to fill out forms and include invoices, whether it was for housekeeping, snow removal or window cleaning, and it all had to be reviewed by officials. There were over 100,000 transactions of that nature. We simplified the process so there would be only two payments, thereby making things easier for veterans.

Officials can now spend their time on more important tasks than reviewing housekeeping, snow removal and window cleaning invoices. Taxpayers also come out further ahead, as do veterans, most of whom are aging, we have to admit, and who benefit from the veterans independence program, also known as the VIP program.

I also want to applaud the fact that Public Works and Government Services Canada has already produced recommendations in response to the Red Tape Reduction Commission's work, which started in 2011. Led by the minister, the member for Beauce, our government consulted businesses across the country with a view to boosting efficiency and figuring out how best to reduce red tape and spare businesses from getting bogged down in bureaucratic processes.

Of the many recommendations, Public Works and Government Services Canada adopted two that zeroed in on improving the procurement process. In response to one of the recommendations in the Red Tape Reduction Commission's report, Public Works and Government Services Canada improved the famous MERX database. People who work for Public Works and Government Services Canada know it well.

PWGSC improved the procurement process by adopting a smart procurement approach that leverages digital technology to provide tools and information that enhance service delivery while cutting costs and reducing the operational burden for clients, suppliers, and procurement staff. That is my first example.

The department continued to create electronic tools for its clients, which helped the government to become more efficient and improve its services. That measure is related to another measure, the open bidding service. It was recommended that the program be improved and that is what PWGSC did. The government electronic tendering service was improved. There is now one-stop access to information on the federal government's procurement activities.

The people watching at home, whether they be entrepreneurs or suppliers, can go to the MERX website to see all of the federal government's procurement and leasing needs and determine whether they can meet those needs. This bill pertains mainly to property development projects.

The MERX website has become the Government of Canada's official website for tendering opportunities. This site provides one-stop access to information on the federal government's procurement activities. It contains useful information and it is easy to access.

Now, it is important for the government to simplify its processes and become more efficient by removing red tape rather than creating more.

We believe that today's bill will create red tape and concentrate powers in the minister's hands. Given the large number of transactions that are conducted, I worry that this bill will merely serve to create more red tape. That is why we cannot support this bill today.

Once again, we need to remember that if our companies have to deal with red tape, they will not be able to remain competitive. As a result, in order to create healthy communities, we need to reduce red tape. We do not intend to support this bill at this time.

[Ahmed Hussen, Liberal, York South—Weston, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his support of the bill, as well as for his question.

The issue of procurement is important. My government has committed to modernizing the procurement process. In terms of Bill C-227, a similar piece of legislation in Ontario, Bill 6, has survived trade agreements.

I intend to continue to consult with Canadians. My understanding is that Bill C-227 would be enshrined in federal law if it passes. It would enable the federal minister to use a community benefits approach when a project requires it because not every project will have a community benefits outcome. There are projects that will not produce many benefits, but there are certainly some that will require community benefit support.

[Ahmed Hussen, Liberal, York South—Weston, ON]

moved that Bill C-227, an act to amend the Department of Public Works and Government Services Act (community benefit), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise in the House to speak to Canadians about my private member's bill, Bill C-227, an act to amend the Department of Public Works and Government Services Act, community benefit.

Before I begin, I would like to thank the residents of York South—Weston for giving me the confidence and the opportunity to be in the House of Commons to present this legislation.

Since I drew an early slot in the private members' lottery, I consulted widely, and I heard extensively from various stakeholders. I felt a special responsibility to put forward legislation that would greatly benefit all Canadians.

Bill C-227 would amend section 20 of the Department of Public Works and Government Services Act to include a provision that would give the Minister of Public Services and Procurement the flexibility to require bidders on federal construction, maintenance and repair contracts to include information on the community benefits that the project would provide.

Community benefits are essentially the social or economic benefits that result from a development project above and beyond the project itself. These include but are not limited to local job creation, paid training, apprenticeships, affordable housing, or any other benefit that the community identifies.

What are community benefits agreements? These are agreements between an infrastructure developer and the Minister of Public Services and Procurement that are developed after input from local community groups. CBAs are a new approach and a very important tool in empowering local communities to partner with developers in order to respond to local challenges. Essentially, CBAs maximize the local economic impact of publicly-funded development projects, producing quality jobs, training, and contributing to a responsible growth and development, and a healthier environment.

For example, my riding of York South—Weston has a section of the Eglinton LRT project, a project that has embraced a community-benefits approach, and is a great example of how a public works project can benefit a community above and beyond the project itself.

I will now present case studies. Before I do that, according to a joint report from the Mowat Centre and the Atkinson Foundation, the Government of Canada, the province of Ontario, and the city of Toronto alone have spent $23.5 billion per year procuring goods and services, including construction. Imagine how communities would thrive if even a portion of that expenditure had CBAs tied to it. We would have more local jobs produced and more opportunities for local businesses because big construction contracts would be chopped down to bite-size pieces. We would have more paid training and apprenticeships, and unions would have new blood inserted into their membership.

I held a round table in my riding of York South—Weston in the city of Toronto with the federal Minister of Infrastructure and Communities. We had over 20 stakeholders participate. The message was clear. They wanted the Government of Canada to leverage spending on federal projects by increasing the local economic impact of these projects. They wanted community benefits to result from these projects above and beyond the project itself. They wanted federal leadership to result from this.

Community benefits agreements are not new. They have been used for years in the United States and in many other parts of the world.

There are great examples also of community benefits agreements working in our country. These also highlight how they could work here.

Social networks and indigenous communities in Canada have signed community benefits agreements for various projects, including the 2010 Olympic Winter Games' Southeast False Creek Olympic Village, where a community benefits agreement was formed to create opportunities in the areas of training, and the acquisition of goods and services.

The second example is the Waneta expansion project. The Columbia Power Corporation signed a community benefits agreement with the Ktunaxa Nation Council for the Waneta expansion project in British Columbia, which included provisions for assistance to the community in small hydro development.

Finally, the Eglinton crosstown LRT project is set to provide benefits to disadvantaged communities through equitable hiring practices, training, apprenticeships, local suppliers, and social procurement opportunities, where possible. In addition to this, other provinces such as Nova Scotia, Quebec, and Manitoba are either exploring or have already implemented a formal community benefit agreement.

Since 2001, just south of the border in Los Angeles, one of the first successful pioneers of community benefit agreements, organizations have negotiated CBAs that range from living wage requirements to investments in parks and recreation.

In the United Kingdom in 2012, the Public Services (Social Value) Act was passed to promote social benefits through public sector procurement. According to this act a commissioning authority must consider how the purchase might improve the economic, social, and environmental well-being of the relevant area, so that everyone can get a slice of the development pie.

All of these case studies show very clearly that there is a growing realization that community benefit agreements are essential to public development projects.

Experience also shows that CBAs can bring historically marginalized or excluded groups into the construction industry. Women, for example, represent more than 50% of the population but just 2.6% of the construction industry labour force. Youth from underprivileged communities, veterans, and indigenous groups can also benefit from community benefit agreements and become more involved in the construction industry.

There are groups already addressing this issue and I will give three examples. The Hammer Heads program in the greater Toronto area is a skill and employment-based training program with the construction industry that provides youth from under-resourced and underprivileged communities with access to apprenticeship career opportunities. Helmets to Hardhats is a Canada-wide program that is designed to provide opportunities to anyone who has or is serving in the Canadian Forces.

Finally, “I'm Eglinton” is a pre-apprenticeship program in my riding of York South—Weston for Ontario Works recipients interested in a career in the construction and building trades industries. The program aims to provide participants with knowledge about the building trades and to expose them to working in the building trades and construction fields. By gaining real-life experience, networking with industry members, and gaining a secure foothold in the construction industry the community benefits in addition to these individuals.

My Bill C-227 would also allow for measures to ensure there is implementation of the community benefit agreements that are signed by developers and that there is also a measurement of outcomes.

If Bill C-227 is passed, it would empower the Minister of Public Services and Procurement to require bidders on government-funded projects to explain the community benefits that would result from these projects. The bill would also enable the minister to require these developers to provide an assessment as to whether the project has indeed provided community benefits. The bill would also require the minister to report back to Parliament at the end of every fiscal year to demonstrate what community benefits were delivered from the CBAs that were signed.

Community benefit agreements are inline with our government's priorities, such as procurement modernization. In addition to this, the largest province in the country, Ontario, has already set a precedent for community benefits. Ontario has successfully made community benefit agreements in the context of infrastructure planning and investment.

In conclusion, the community benefit agreements that would emanate from Bill C-227 are particularly suited to my riding and many other communities that would benefit greatly from local and increased economic impact from federal building projects.

Many communities in the U.S. and Canada have already had many projects with a CBA component but they have done this without a legislative framework. However, this is an idea that has passed the test in practical terms and in many communities. It has delivered.

My bill is about bringing CBAs into the federal realm, so that we can allow the Government of Canada to exercise leadership on community benefit agreements and take its benefits to all communities across Canada. If passed, we would have an amazing opportunity in which the Government of Ontario and the Government of Canada would have CBA enshrined in law. This would create a model for the rest of the country. It is also about ensuring that future federal projects involving the construction, maintenance, or repair of federal projects would result in community benefits for millions of Canadians from coast to coast to coast.

I am asking my colleagues on all sides of the House for their support for my private member's bill, Bill C-227, An Act to amend the Department of Public Works and Government Services Act (community benefit), so that we can have a community benefit approach enshrined in federal law. I welcome any amendments that my colleagues will bring forward at the committee stage.

[Ahmed Hussen, Liberal, York South—Weston, ON]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-227, An Act to amend the Department of Public Works and Government Services Act (community benefit).

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to rise today to introduce my first private member's bill, with support of the member for Scarborough—Rouge Park, on community benefit agreements (CBAs) and federal spending on infrastructure.

CBAs are a new approach to development and growth in neighbourhoods all across Canada. CBAs create community wealth, quality jobs, training, responsible growth, and a healthier environment. CBAs empower communities to make development work for them. CBAs are about fairness and broad community participation in the development process, resulting in everyone getting a slice of the development pie.

My riding of York South—Weston has a section of the Eglinton crosstown LRT project, a project that has embraced a community benefits approach and is a great example of a community that would benefit from CBAs being a component of federal spending on infrastructure projects.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)