Evidence of meeting #33 for Industry, Science and Technology in the 43rd Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was regulatory.
A recording is available from Parliament.
11:35 a.m.
Conservative
11:35 a.m.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Carleton, ON
You have two warehouses, though. There's the old warehouse, which has about the same dimensions. It's about 30 or 40 feet away. That was originally built 50 years ago.
How much time and money did the then owners have to spend on government?
11:35 a.m.
Owner, The WoodSource Inc.
It was built in the early 1970s. We are currently in the city of Ottawa. Back then it was Osgoode township.
The permit was applied for on a Monday, and on the Thursday they had the permit. It was a one-page document that had the site plan, building, engineer's drawing and engineer's stamp, and away they went.
11:35 a.m.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Carleton, ON
Wait a second. They applied on a Monday, and they got the permit on the Thursday?
11:35 a.m.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Carleton, ON
How long did it take you for your new warehouse, 30 feet away? Just give a ballpark.
11:35 a.m.
Owner, The WoodSource Inc.
It took just over three years to get the permit to start construction, from when we initiated the conversation.
11:35 a.m.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Carleton, ON
Okay, so back in the 1970s it took three days, and now it takes three years.
11:35 a.m.
Owner, The WoodSource Inc.
That would be it; maybe four days in the 1970s to three years now.
11:35 a.m.
Conservative
11:35 a.m.
Owner, The WoodSource Inc.
No. It's actually a beautiful structure, built with unique construction methods—nail-laminated timber, using great Canadian lumber. It's doing its job beautifully today.
11:35 a.m.
Conservative
11:35 a.m.
Owner, The WoodSource Inc.
No. As we say here, “knock on wood” it's still standing and doing well.
11:40 a.m.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Carleton, ON
That's a good pun. I like that.
In other words, the regulators did their job in four days back in the 1970s, to allow for the safe construction of a big, beautiful building that has created hundreds of jobs over the decades. They did that in four days. Now it takes three years to do the very same thing.
You spent $600,000 on government to build this new facility. How many people could you have employed doing productive work for your company with that $600,000?
11:40 a.m.
Owner, The WoodSource Inc.
That's a tough question to answer. It would bring the cost of production down, and we would be far more competitive. Over the years, we've had to compete against offshore companies. There's a huge amount of competition with Asian companies that have very cheap electricity, a cheap cost of labour, no health and safety issues and—
11:40 a.m.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Carleton, ON
Generally speaking, roughly how many jobs does the $600,000 represent? You don't need to be precise.
11:40 a.m.
Owner, The WoodSource Inc.
That would be another seven or eight full-time employees.
11:40 a.m.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Carleton, ON
Multiply this story, everyone, times thousands of businesses across the country that could be hiring and paying wages with this money. Instead, they're spending the money filling out paperwork for the government, to achieve precisely nothing above and beyond what was achieved 50 years ago in three or four days with a few thousand dollars to get the same approval done.
That is the gatekeeper economy. It drives down jobs and wages and drives up consumer prices because businesses of course have to pass on these costs to the consumer and to the worker.
Tim, the consultants say, “Don't worry about all of this paperwork. We'll do it for you. You pay us a fee, and then we'll go and get you a grant from a bunch of government departments to compensate you for all of the costs that government has imposed on you.” In other words, they block you from building, and then they subsidize you to build.
Suppose you had two options. Option one is that the government gets out of your way, gives you a simple, clear, safe approval and lets you build with your own money. Option two is that they delay you for four or five years and charge you $600,000 but then offer you a taxpayer-funded grant to compensate you for those costs. Which of those two options, as an entrepreneur, would you prefer?
11:40 a.m.
Owner, The WoodSource Inc.
I will always prefer the former, where we look after things and do things ourselves. I don't want any of the members of the committee to think that we're some fly-by-night operation. All our members are members of the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners. We look after our family here. We aren't trying to do anything to damage the economy or damage the environment. We want to grow and develop and turn Ottawa back into a lumber town, moving it away from the political town it's become—take us back in history a bit.
11:40 a.m.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Carleton, ON
You're right, absolutely. It was a lumber town; that's how the city was founded. You run a great business that's been there for generations and paid good wages and provided good services. If the government could get out of your way, you could do even more.
Thanks for being here, Tim.
11:40 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sherry Romanado
Thank you very much.
We'll now go to MP Ehsassi. You have the floor for six minutes.
April 22nd, 2021 / 11:40 a.m.
Liberal
Ali Ehsassi Liberal Willowdale, ON
Thank you, Madam Chair. I'll start off with Ms. Tiessen.
Thank you for your testimony, Ms. Tiessen. One of the specific things you actually referenced in your testimony was changes that were made to the Competition Act in 2009. More specifically, you talked about the removal of the term “purchase”. Could you share with us what the previous government's rationale was at the time for removing the definition of “purchase”?
11:40 a.m.
National Representative, Research Department, Unifor
What I have done in my research is read what the most recent statement was by the Competition Bureau. Because of that change, they were unable to investigate the accusations of collusion. Exactly what the rationale was back in 2009, I'm not aware of. I'm aware of the results of that rationale and the effect that that's had on our members. However, I would be very happy to do a bit of digging and get back to you.
11:40 a.m.
Liberal
Ali Ehsassi Liberal Willowdale, ON
I'd be very grateful—if it's not too much trouble—if you could submit to us what the previous government did in 2009 and what the consequences have been, because it's important that we focus on these types of challenges. Thank you for that.
Mr. van Raalte, thank you for explaining to us what occurred in 2018: the cabinet directive on regulations. You touched on a few of the challenges, and I have to admit that the challenges were, I think, challenges that would have been foreseeable. For example, you talked about the regulatory burden, competitiveness and things of that nature. Could you tell us some of the successes that have been accomplished since 2018?