Transport Committee on May 7th, 2013

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

You're not an expert, but you have an opinion.

That's okay. I like that. You can run for office now. You would be ready for office—not on my side, but probably as a Conservative.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

You are done, Mr. Coderre.

We'll now move to Mr. Poilievre, for seven minutes.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

Are you suggesting that unionized companies should not be allowed to compete against their union-free counterparts?

[John Mortimer]

Not at all.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

So you're in favour of an open competition that would allow unionized contractors to bid, union-free contractors to bid, and alternative union contractors to bid.

[John Mortimer]

Yes.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

You believe in eliminating discrimination against all potential bidders.

[John Mortimer]

Correct.

I think there's one other very important caveat. If we're going to have union bidding and unions are going to be able to take money in these funds called MERFs or STABs and use them to compete against the union-free, that strikes me as some sort of cartel-like restraint on trade that I'm shocked exists. In many of these public projects, it's the taxpayers' money that ends up in these fund that are turned around and used to subsidize their bids.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

But in principle you're not against unionized companies competing for—

[John Mortimer]

No, not at all.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

Clearly, there are some unionized companies that do good work.

[John Mortimer]

Absolutely.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

And there are unions that represent their members well.

[John Mortimer]

There are some that do.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

Your goal here is not to eliminate their ability to participate in public tendering; you're just asking for the same right for union-free enterprises?

[John Mortimer]

Correct.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

It sounds like you're not favouring one side or another in your recommendation, but you're asking for a level playing field.

[John Mortimer]

It's the same tone that we take on our website. The LabourWatch website says, “If you want a union, join one. If you want to keep your union, work with the union to keep it there.”

We want a level playing field that doesn't involve legislated discrimination.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

Your recommendation, then, to the federal government is that it require that level playing field when it directly funds a project.

[John Mortimer]

Correct.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

You're saying, in an instance where the federal government comes with one-third to fund a bridge or a light rail project, that it should insist on a level playing field and open competition for the project.

[John Mortimer]

Yes. And if it's not there, then the dollars don't flow.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

Okay.

Do you have examples of where this has been done, where the federal government has attached conditions to its funding of projects?

[John Mortimer]

I don't specifically have any knowledge of that being done.

There are other ways that I've seen it in some municipalities. There are various schemes, and that's the difficulty. Those, of course, are all provincial and municipal jurisdictions; whatever scheme they want to have in place is their business. But to take the money of a union-free Canadian and hand it over, possibly in the municipality where they work, and say, “You can't apply there because you're not a union member”, my goodness. It's outrageous.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

Are you aware of examples of where limiting competition improves the price that the taxpayers pay?