Finance Committee on May 28th, 2019

[Michael McLeod, Liberal, Northwest Territories, NT]

Mr. Chairman, this amendment responds to the requests by indigenous partners to use language that is aligned with the wording of section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982. Accepting the proposed amendment demonstrates a willingness to use language that best responds to the interests of indigenous partners, and it also reflects what the senators heard in testimony at the Senate Standing Committee on Aboriginal Peoples.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Is there any discussion?

(Amendment agreed to on division [See Minutes of Proceedings])

We have Liberal-19. You're up again, Mr. McLeod.

[Michael McLeod, Liberal, Northwest Territories, NT]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

This amendment responds to a request by indigenous partners to ensure that the recognition of treaties between indigenous peoples and the Crown are part of the guiding principles of the department. This amendment brings clarity and reinforces the existing practice of the department on recognition of treaties and it also reflects testimony at the Senate Standing Committee on Aboriginal Peoples.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

That's open for debate or discussion.

(Amendment agreed to on division [See Minutes of Proceedings])

We have Liberal-20.

Mr. McLeod.

[Michael McLeod, Liberal, Northwest Territories, NT]

Mr. Chairman, this amendment responds to a request by indigenous partners to ensure that the recognition of treaties between indigenous peoples and the Crown are part of the guiding principles of the department. This amendment brings clarity and reinforces existing practices of the department on the recognition of treaties. By accepting this amendment, greater clarity is brought to the minister's role in the negotiations of treaties and other agreements on behalf of the Government of Canada.

This amendment also reflects the testimony at the Senate Standing Committee on Aboriginal Peoples.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Is there any discussion on Liberal-20?

(Amendment agreed to on division [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clause 337 as amended agreed to on division)

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Now we are on new clause 337.1, which is Liberal-21.

Mr. McLeod.

[Michael McLeod, Liberal, Northwest Territories, NT]

This amendment is required in order to add a new clause to fix the coming into force date for subdivision B to no later than July 15, 2019. This amendment ensures that the coming into force of this legislation is aligned with the consequential amendment relating to the transfer of appropriations.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Is there any discussion?

(Amendment agreed to on division [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Clauses 338 to 382 have no amendments proposed.

(Clauses 338 to 382 inclusive agreed to on division)

(On clause 383)

We have an amendment, Liberal-22.

Mr. McLeod.

[Michael McLeod, Liberal, Northwest Territories, NT]

This amendment is required to ensure the entry into force of the amendments concerning the First Nations Financial Transparency Act do not come before the entry into force of subdivisions A and B. This amendment is necessary to ensure there are no gaps or inconsistencies in ministerial authorities.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Is there any discussion?

(Amendment agreed to on division [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clause 383 as amended agreed to on division)

Clauses 384 to 386 have no proposed amendments.

(Clauses 384 to 386 inclusive agreed to on division)

Thank you, Mr. Morin.

On division 26, prompt payment for construction work, we have some witnesses.

We have Mr. Gardner, Senior Director, Real Property Service Management from PSPC; and Mr. Meszaros, Senior Counsel, Department of Justice. Welcome, folks.

(On clause 387)

We will turn to NDP-30.

Mr. Dusseault.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

We will now move to another topic. For the benefit of those listening, we are now talking about the Federal Prompt Payment for Construction Work Act.

As members of the committee will recall, we heard a number of presentations on this proposed legislation, which is at the very least historic, given all the work that has been done in some provinces to enact similar legislation. What is being proposed today is to make it a federal act applicable to federal construction work on federal lands. So the scope is limited, but it's better than nothing. According to the presentations and the department, that's about 2% of construction work in Canada. It's still better than nothing. At least we are making progress. This may encourage other provinces to move forward and cover even more ground.

Furthermore, I find it a little disappointing today to see that, around this table, only the NDP has taken some of the recommendations seriously and proposed amendments to reflect what was said before the committee. A number of witnesses mentioned that the proposed legislation needed to be strengthened and that, while it was good and a first step, more needed to be done to ensure that the construction industry would enforce the legislation in the desired way. We wanted to make sure that certain terms would really reflect the reality in the sector.

The first proposal of five is intended to clarify, at the beginning of this act, that it also applies to construction projects involving federal real property or federal buildings carried out as part of a public-private partnership with Her Majesty. This is to reassure industry that it applies not only to projects for which a contract is entered into directly between Her Majesty and a contractor, but also to projects that could be carried out in a public-private partnership. According to a witness, the same thing had been said in Ontario.

It's just to create certainty on this side. I hope to have the support of the committee for this amendment, in order to reflect what the committee heard and what a particular witness proposed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

If anybody has questions for the officials, bring them in because this relates to public-private partnerships.

Mr. Sorbara.

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Once again, I very much thank the member for his important work.

The amendment the member has put forward is.... I wouldn't use the word “redundant”, but P3s are already contemplated in the act and specific reference to them is not necessary.

In addition, the legislation is written in a manner that clearly identifies that from Her Majesty to any P3 contract, payments must be made by 28 days after the receipt of a proper invoice. Any payments to the P3 contractors are to be paid 35 days after receipt of the proper invoice on P3 projects. This occurs on substantial completion or at specific milestones only.

With that feedback, I'm apt to reject the member's amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Okay.

Mr. Dusseault.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

My thanks to the member for his comments. This confirms Parliament's intention in the public records. At least we're making progress. It clarifies that this covers PPPs. At least those watching our debates will know that Parliament's intention was to include them. Like one of the witnesses we heard, I would have preferred it to be written explicitly, but it's better than nothing.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Anyone else?

Do the officials have anything they want to add on this point?

Go ahead, Mr. Kmiec.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

This is to the officials. What would be the impact of making this amendment, because it sounds from Mr. Sorbara that, in fact, this is already being done and there is no problem. This would be redundant, but there's no law saying that the government has to do it the way.... That's contractual law. It's not parliamentary law like the actual law of the land. Is that the distinction between the two?

[Shawn Gardner, Senior Director, Real Property Services Management Contracting Directorate, Department of Public Works and Government Services]

That's correct.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

We'll vote on amendment NDP-30 to clause 387.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

The next amendment coming from the NDP is NDP-31.

Mr. Dusseault.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

This amendment is also in response to the testimony we heard before the committee about the possibility for a contractor and the government, in this case Her Majesty, to revise an invoice.

In the text before us today, there is an obligation to provide a proper invoice. That goes without saying. Then there is the obligation to pay it within 28 days of receipt. However, as witnesses have mentioned, it is not clear whether there is an opportunity to revise the invoice during the 28-day period. In practice, if a review were to take place, it could delay payment, since a new invoice would be issued.

The purpose of the amendment is for the proposed legislation to recognize that, even if the parties discuss and the invoice is revised during the timeline, the first invoice is still proper and the timeline applies as soon as the first proper invoice is sent.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

I have Mr. Sorbara, but I think there was a question in Mr. Dusseault's comments there and we may need to get clarification from you folks.

Mr. Sorbara.

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My understanding, and the officials may want to clarify, is that there is nothing in the proposed legislation that prevents the acceptance of a revised proper invoice on consent. Is that correct?

[Christopher Meszaros, Senior Counsel, Department of Justice]

This is correct. It would be up to the discretion of Her Majesty then to decide whether or not to make any amendments to what's been asked for from the contract.