Transport Committee on May 9th, 2013

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

We will start our meeting.

We want to thank our witnesses, Mr. Atkinson and Mr. Reid, for being here. Mr. Kooy is running a bit behind, but we'll start with you two gentlemen and hopefully, Mr. Kooy will show up.

Mr. Atkinson, go ahead for 10 minutes, please.

[Michael Atkinson, President, Canadian Construction Association]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

We'd like to thank the committee for providing the Canadian Construction Association, or CCA, as it's known by its acronym, with the opportunity to appear before you today. My name is Michael Atkinson, and l am the president of the association.

CCA is the national association representing Canada's non-residential construction sector. We have some 20,000 individual member firms from coast to coast to coast. These people build everything other than single family dwellings, including our nation's public infrastructure. Collectively we are more than 64 local and regional associations across Canada, and some 10 affiliated partner associations, including one which I believe appeared before you last week: Merit Canada. I'm also happy to be here with our colleagues from the Progressive Contractors Association of Canada. Their members are mostly, if not all, members of our organization as well.

I should say right from the start that we represent construction companies regardless of their labour relations affiliation. We represent unionized contractors who have collective bargaining agreements with the traditional building trade unions. We represent contractors who have union affiliation with CLAC, and we represent contractors who are non-union. We represent all of those organizations under one umbrella.

Canada's construction industry strongly supports fair and open competition in the procurement of all public sector contracts. From our perspective, public procurement should never contain preferential policies that favour one type of contractor over another based on their labour management policies, the region of origin, or any other form of arbitrary preference. A fair and open tendering process provides the public owner with the widest variety of choice in pricing, thereby ensuring the highest rate of return on scarce taxpayer dollars.

It is from this perspective that l say today that CCA member firms oppose the use of any limitations on the tendering process other than those that are technical in nature or compulsory due to applicable prevailing legislation or laws. Similarly, we are opposed to the use of federal funding to support own-force infrastructure construction and maintenance by public entities unless the work is awarded based on a level playing field in a truly fair and open competitive tendering process.

For this reason, we strongly support the inclusion of language in the soon to be negotiated federal-provincial infrastructure funding framework agreements that prohibits the use of federal funds to support projects awarded under unreasonable preferences, or exclusionary tender policies, or are awarded directly to public entities without the benefit of a truly competitive tendering system. The one caveat is with regard to the situation where the limitations are required by applicable prevailing law.

Moving to red tape, Mr. Chair, which is also the subject of this committee study, we'd like to help stretch infrastructure dollars under the new Building Canada plan by ensuring that the changes to environmental assessment, the kinds of practices that were used on the stimulus program, for example—and with the new environmental assessment reforms that have been introduced and are now in law—are strongly supported, because they reduce needless overlap. We're talking about there being no need for the federal government to have a duplicate process of review or assessment or otherwise, for situations in which provincial jurisdictions, or jurisdictions that are closer to these projects, perform environmental assessments that are up to the standards expected for those projects. We expect to see the kinds of good lessons that we learned on the stimulus program, and indeed that have been enshrined in the new environmental legislation, used on those projects to ensure certainty and timeliness.

Similarly, we believe that the use of the expedited application processes that were used under the stimulus program should also be adopted. We heard how in many cases municipalities and other entities under the stimulus program had one-page application forms. The red tape, if you will, and the bureaucracy that was normally associated with trying to get a project approved under one of those programs, was very much fast-tracked so that, as the expression goes, we could get shovels in the ground very quickly. We would like to see the kinds of lessons we learned there continued in the infrastructure programs.

Reducing red tape shouldn't be limited just to the Building Canada plan. We also see scope for the elimination of red tape on federal infrastructure projects that could yield similar cost savings.

One example is industrial security clearances. Contractors today are required to obtain industrial security clearances for their firms and their employees on federal government projects, from each of the government departments they are working for. Since ultimately CSIS and the RCMP do all the clearances, a single clearance should suffice. However, what we have found in some situations is that there is no recognition or reciprocity between departments on these industrial security clearances; hence there's duplication, uncertainty, and cost added to our industry to bid and work on these projects.

We understand measures are being considered that would address this, but they can't come too soon from our perspective.

We're also concerned about the red tape costs and burden that may be added to federal projects if measures announced in the recent federal budget aren't done with full consultation with the industry, in particular the measures to engage or promote apprenticeship on federal construction projects and to encourage other levels of government to do so through the Building Canada plan.

While we absolutely agree with the intent of the program, which is to get more apprentices trained and apprenticeships completed, we want to ensure that the measures put in place are not arbitrary, but are meaningful, effective, understood, and certain so they do not create an unneeded barrier or additional red tape for contractors participating on those projects.

Finally, Mr. Chairman, there's one other issue when it comes to competition, and that's with respect to public-private partnerships. All P3s are not publicly funded. An unfair competitive situation has arisen with Canadian contractors participating on P3 projects here in Canada. It has to do with foreign companies being able to use their export credit agencies to help them obtain letters of credit or other kinds of liquid security required by long-term lenders on projects here in Canada.

Our members have been able to take advantage of Export Development Canada's domestic powers. You'll recall this was a temporary measure that was introduced as part of the stimulus program. There are now proposals to restrict access by Canadian firms to those domestic powers. We believe that will significantly limit the ability of Canadian firms to compete on a level playing field with foreign construction firms on major P3 projects that are eligible for EDC domestic financing, because they will have their export credit agencies in tow when they compete on those projects.

Mr. Chair, I'm going to stop there. I'd be happy to answer any questions.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Thank you very much, Mr. Atkinson.

We'll now move to Mr. Sean Reid. You have 10 minutes.

[Sean Reid, Director, Federal and Ontario, Progressive Contractors Association of Canada]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good afternoon, everyone.

It's my pleasure to be here on behalf of the Progressive Contractors Association of Canada, to share our perspective on how competition can make infrastructure dollars go further.

PCA commends the committee for initiating this study, which addresses a topic of critical interest to our member companies and their employees. We believe it should also be an issue of great importance to every Canadian.

Let me start by introducing our organization. Progressive Contractors Association of Canada represents and supports progressive, unionized employers in Canada's construction industry. Our member companies employ over 25,000 skilled tradespeople across Canada, unionized primarily by the Christian Labour Association of Canada, a unique and modern union, not affiliated with the Canadian Labour Congress or the traditional building trade unions.

My colleague Brendan will speak more about them in a few minutes.

The goal of PCA as an association is to ensure that Canada has a fair and open construction industry, cooperative labour relations, and a robust, inclusive, and highly capable workforce. We believe in open competition in which no sector is given artificial or unfair advantage over another based on union affiliation or lack thereof.

PCA contractors are very much at the centre of infrastructure construction in Canada. Today our member contractors are building over 40 water treatment and waste water facilities across Ontario alone, and several more throughout western Canada.

Our members built the Sea-to-Sky Highway, the Port Mann Bridge, and the Pitt River Bridge in British Columbia. Much of the Anthony Henday Drive ring road in Edmonton was built by a PCA company. Our members account for 40% of all energy and resource sector construction in B.C. and Alberta. Several members of this committee may also be familiar with the work our member companies did in building the terminal buildings at Toronto’s city centre airport.

In short, our member companies are leaders in building Canada's economy and the infrastructure that supports it. Despite our clear qualifications, however, regulations and policies in several Canadian provinces and municipalities prevent our members and their workers from bidding on many federally funded infrastructure projects, not because we aren’t qualified to do the work, but simply because our unionized employees are not unionized by certain select privileged trade unions.

The scope of this issue is substantial. In Ontario, public infrastructure projects for the City of Toronto, the City of Hamilton, the City of Sault Ste. Marie, and the Greater Essex County District School Board are all off limits to PCA member firms.

In Manitoba, major infrastructure projects such as the Red River Floodway expansion project and the East Side Road project are off limits to PCA member firms.

In addition, projects for Ontario Power Generation, Hydro One, Bruce Power, and Manitoba Hydro are all the exclusive domain of a handful of trade unions and their affiliated contractors, not PCA members and our workers.

The committee has heard testimony over the last two weeks on the scope and cost of this issue of closed tendering. PCA would like to underline the following. First, this is not a static problem; it's one that is growing. This is not about fair wages and employee compensation. In addition to being an issue of fiscal and economic responsibility, it is also one of fairness for all Canadians. Let me elaborate.

The issue of closed tendering is not a static problem, but rather a problem that is growing. In Ontario, the first restrictions began in Toronto and Sault Ste. Marie decades ago. Then, in 2005 the City of Hamilton became subject to a tendering monopoly by the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America.

Today it appears that the Region of Waterloo will soon be subject to the same carpenters union-only restrictions. In December 2012, the carpenters union applied to the Ontario Labour Relations Board to certify the Region of Waterloo. If certification is granted, not only would the region’s employees become members of the union, but the region would also be prevented from contracting with any company whose employees were not members of the carpenters union.

While the matter is still before the board, industry consensus is that certification will be successful, and Waterloo will be the site of Canada’s newest construction monopoly. As a result, some $200 million of Waterloo’s annual capital budget will be subject to closed tendering, bringing the total scope of the closed tendering crisis in Ontario municipalities alone to approximately $1 billion annually.

Let me provide one other example of how closed tendering will impact Waterloo. Since December 2009 the region has tendered over $140 million in water and waste water infrastructure projects, of which 27 companies pre-qualified to bid on those highly specialized projects. If closed tendering had been in place over that same period, only two companies would have pre-qualified to bid on those projects.

As I am sure you know, when you shrink a potential market of bidders by over 90%, costs will inevitably go up, and they will go up dramatically. Unless something is done to permanently put a stop to this, we have every reason to believe that more municipalities in Ontario and in other regions of Canada will soon be closed off.

Contrary to the opinions of some, this is not about fair wages or employee compensation. The City of Hamilton had a fair wage policy in place prior to being certified by the carpenters union, yet once closed tendering began, city staff reported that the costs of major infrastructure projects such as water treatment plants would inflate by 40% simply because of dramatically reduced competition.

PCA members are ready to adhere to fair wage policies if necessary. We simply want the right to bid regardless of the union affiliation of our workers. Let me quote Hamilton city councillor Lloyd Ferguson, who's chair of the city’s public works committee. In a February news article about closed tendering, he said:

It's a huge issue; it’s a very difficult issue for us.... Less competition, higher price. It’s that simple.... Government money should be spent to the best-qualified, lowest-bid contractor, not because of any particular union affiliation.

We could not have said it better ourselves.

Finally, closed tendering is not only an issue of fiscal and economic responsibility, it's also one of fairness and equality for all Canadians. How can it be that in 21st century Canada, a taxpaying skilled tradesperson or small business owner in Hamilton can be systematically excluded from the right to bid on publicly funded projects in his or her own city? This is not because of lack of skill, not because of lack of experience, but because the person carries the wrong union card or no union card at all.

As Canada finds itself in the midst of mounting fiscal challenges for governments at all levels, PCA is asking the federal government to take action. It's time to address the needless cost inflation of closed tendering and construction labour monopolies. We are asking the federal government to help solve this growing problem once and for all by instituting a requirement that all federally funded projects be subject to fair and open tendering, regardless of union affiliation or lack thereof.

Thank you very much, and I'll be happy to answer any questions.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Thanks, Mr. Reid.

Now, Mr. Kooy. Welcome, and thanks for coming. You have 10 minutes.

[Brendan Kooy, Regional Director, Eastern Ontario, Christian Labour Association of Canada]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and good afternoon. I apologize for my tardiness.

I appreciate the opportunity to speak to the committee on behalf of the Christian Labour Association of Canada, or CLAC.

The issue of fair and efficient use of federal infrastructure funding is one that is critically important to CLAC and our members. More importantly, this is an issue that gets to questions of basic democratic fairness in Canada. We are very encouraged that it is now being studied and discussed at this level, and we are pleased to be able to share our thoughts with this committee.

CLAC is an independent, multi-sector, all-Canadian trade union which was founded in 1952 and now represents more than 55,000 workers across the country in a variety of industries, but particularly for the purposes of this committee, in construction and mining. To date, CLAC is recognized by five different provincial labour relations boards and the Canadian Industrial Relations Board and has been certified more than 2,000 times as a trade union.

CLAC was founded upon Christian social principles such as integrity, partnership, fairness, respect, and community. CLAC takes a cooperative, common-sense approach to labour relations.

Nationally, CLAC represents more than 42,000 workers in the construction industry. These workers work for some of the leading contractors in Canada—PCL, Ledcor, Kiewit Corporation, JV Driver, Maple Reinders, North American Construction Group—and work on some of the major public and private sector projects across the country.

In the construction industry, CLAC stands out from the single-craft international building trades unions in that it represents workers of multiple trades under one collective agreement. This approach promotes fewer jurisdictional work disputes, greater workplace cooperation, and increased efficiency on the job site.

CLAC's approach, while unique, is just one example of alternative construction unions in Canada. It used to be that in order to work on major infrastructure projects in Canada, workers had to join old-style craft unions represented by the building trades. In those days, particularly the 1950s and 1960s, the international building trades unions were seen as the only solution available for providing the stability needed in the industry.

However, times have changed. There are now more options for construction workers in Canada, and these new approaches to labour have developed into mature, effective organizations. Construction workers can still choose to be members of the international building trades unions; they can also choose not to join a union; or they can choose to join one of the many alternative unions such as CLAC, the Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union, the international woodworkers alliance, the Canadian Construction Workers Union, and the list goes on. We firmly believe that construction workers in Canada should have the right to join a union of their choice or not to join a union at all.

We believe that workers, as both citizens and taxpayers, should have equal access to perform construction work on public infrastructure projects that their tax dollars pay for, regardless of their union affiliation. Denying citizens access to publicly funded work because of private choices is unfair and runs contrary to Canadian democratic principles. Unfortunately, today in Canada, from Toronto to Waterloo, from Manitoba to B.C., workers across this country are denied access to work on projects that their tax dollars pay for.

Mr. Chair, we would like to point out three very detrimental effects that public infrastructure construction monopolies have on Canadians, sacrificing things like price, priorities, and principles.

Let me begin with price. Mr. Reid has already spoken very concisely on the matter. I would like to offer a couple more examples. The evidence is clear: construction monopolies mean that the federal government pays anywhere between 10% and 40% more, or receives 10% to 40% less for its infrastructure investments. Recently, the federal government invested $755 million in two large infrastructure projects in Toronto: the Spadina subway line and the Union Station revitalization. It has also invested, in a separate project, $46 million on the Duffin Creek water pollution control plant in Durham, just outside of Toronto. The first two projects were closed for bidding; the latter was open.

Mr. Chair, CLAC members built that Duffin Creek water pollution control plant, but were not allowed to work at Union Station or on the Spadina project. The only difference between the Duffin Creek project and Union Station is a municipal line. I ask, is this fair to those workers? Is it fair to taxpayers in these Toronto ridings that their federal tax dollars buy up to 40% less because of a municipal line? We submit that it is not.

Moreover, closed bidding prevents other federal priorities from being achieved. This government has prioritized hiring apprentices and employing under-represented groups in the construction industry, such as young workers, women, and disabled workers, as part of its jobs plan. It has also done very well by encouraging training and hiring from within aboriginal communities. Closed bidding prevents these priorities from being met. Allow me to offer you an example of how this is currently playing out in Manitoba.

Currently, all Manitoba Hydro work is closed to all contractors except those affiliated with the international building trade unions. To bid on Manitoba Hydro work, contractors must agree to hire workers from the building trades. If non-building trades workers, such as CLAC members, wish to work on these projects, they are forced to switch unions.

Ledcor, a firm that works across the country and a signatory to CLAC, is interested in bidding on the next hydroelectric dam project, but is presently excluded from doing so. Meanwhile, there is unhappiness among the Manitoba Métis and aboriginal populations that building trades contractors are not meeting their local hiring obligations.

With the bidding process closed, infrastructure work is bound to be only done by the international building trade unions. Unions that may do a better job of fulfilling the government's goals of employing apprentices, young workers, and aboriginals are shut out of the process. This limits the pool of private sector stakeholders that can assist the government in meeting its job creation priorities.

Finally, let me address what we believe to be the most important point: principles.

Mr. Chair, the result of closed bidding is a breach of fundamental democratic principles that public funds and public projects should be open to all qualified workers regardless of their private association, in this case, their union affiliation. CLAC members, workers who belong to alternate unions, and non-union workers are all barred from being able to access publicly and, in many cases, federally funded projects across the country. Due to closed bidding restrictions, these Canadians cannot work in communities in which they pay taxes, not because they're not skilled, trained, or proven workers, but because they belong to the wrong union.

Let me be clear. This is not an anti-union issue. This is a fairness issue. We do not submit that the government should seek to deprive workers of their right to join a trade union; however, it is neither good nor fair public policy to allow one or more unions to monopolize publicly funded work.

Over the past decade we have, unfortunately, seen the amount of construction monopolies across the country grow: the City of Hamilton, the City of Waterloo, the Toronto Transit Commission, BC Hydro projects, Manitoba Hydro projects. The question you should be asking yourselves is, will you allow this problem to continue to spread? Infrastructure spending has and will continue to be an integral part of the federal government's budget, and it is quite reasonable for the government and for taxpayers to expect that money to be spent fairly and competitively.

Mr. Chair, we encourage this committee and the federal government to continue to pursue solutions to these problems. We believe that as a first step the federal government can adjust procurement requirements for projects that receive federal infrastructure funding to prevent against voluntary project labour agreements with only selective unions. Provinces or municipalities cannot be allowed to be hoodwinked into agreeing to project labour agreements that restrict open tendering and access because of union affiliation, or lack thereof, for taxpaying Canadians.

Additionally, CLAC believes that the government should make it a priority to invest in a study to find out the true costs for taxpayers of construction monopolies across the country. Taxpayers have a right to know what the exact costs and job access implications are of closed construction markets in Canada.

Thank you for your time today. I will be happy to answer any questions that the committee might have.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Thanks very much, Mr. Kooy.

We'll now start with Mr. Aubin, for seven minutes.

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

Thank you Mr. Chair.

Good afternoon gentlemen. Thank you for being with us. I only have seven short minutes. Unfortunately, that is not enough time for all of my questions, especially since I would like to hear answers from all three of you. I will therefore try to give each of you some time.

From what I have gathered, there is an interesting element that stood out in M. Kooy's presentation. For once there seems to be a distinction made between two things. On the one hand, there is a basic principle: he would like to have an open tendering process. On the other hand, there is a completely different issue: an increase in costs in the case of closed tendering. It seems as though we go from one to the other very quickly, as if there were a cause and effect relation, which may not always be the case.

Do you have examples of projects, putting aside any union affiliations, where a single company was the accredited bidder, therefore preventing any form of competition?

[Michael Atkinson]

I don't have an example, but I want to clarify and make the point that our position is that we would oppose any kind of restriction. Whether that's going to impact competition is going to be very dependent upon the marketplace. For example, we would also be here telling you we're very much opposed to a public entity restricting competition to non-union contractors, particularly in a marketplace where they don't have much of the market share.

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

All right.

[Michael Atkinson]

It's likely to impact the competition.

Similarly, we've opposed and been in front of federal committees before saying that federal funds should not be supporting local or regional preference policies where the out-of-province or out-of-county bidder has to be your 10 or 15—

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

Thank you, I understand this principle well. I would like to know how one tries to strike a balance between this existing restriction and the practically inevitable increase in production costs.

My second question is as follows: have any of your organizations carried out a study demonstrating that there is an increase in costs when there is closed tendering?

[Sean Reid]

I would simply say that the City of Hamilton has done its own study and found their reduction of bidding elevated the cost of the water treatment plant, for example, by up to 40%. The City of Hamilton has also found tendering scenarios that have elevated the cost by up to 80%. They've conducted that research. I think I quoted in my remarks the comments from the public works committee chair who reflected that. They said it is very clear in their experience that when you control for wages—and keep in mind they had a fair wage policy already—the simple reduction of 90% of the bidders in some cases inflates the cost. That's clearly spelled out in their experience.

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

I suppose you have already been faced with closed tendering processes for which some of your partners and members were not able to submit a bid.

Why do certain provinces or large municipalities deliberately choose to use the closed tendering process? There must be something in it for them. I imagine that the political representatives, whether they be provincial or municipal, are interested in getting the maximum value for their money, just as we are.

[Sean Reid]

I would challenge you on that.

One premise that municipalities chose to affiliate is that in every Ontario case they did not make that choice. Those were certifications initiated by the trade unions in Toronto, Sault Ste. Marie, Hamilton, and now in Waterloo. In every one of those cases there was no input.

I should also say that the way the certification system works for these municipalities is they don't get any input on the terms of their collective agreement either. This is not only involuntary certification, it's the involuntary terms and conditions to which they have to adhere. That's an important statement to correct, that in most cases jurisdictions do not choose to go this way, if given the option.

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

Am I to understand that I should extrapolate the model that you are giving for Ontario and apply it to the rest of the provinces in Canada?

[Sean Reid]

Certainly, I believe in many cases that is the case. It may not be entirely. I can't say for sure that it's the case in every one of the situations. Again, in the case of numerous jurisdictions, a historic certification is associated with it that was not entered into voluntarily by that jurisdiction. I can't say with 100% certainty that's the case every time. That is certainly the prominent case.

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

Mr. Kooy, unless I am mistaken, in your presentation you suggested that our committee or the government undertake a study on the cost of monopolies. In my opinion, it is logical and obvious that there could be an increase in costs for infrastructure projects if we were faced with monopolies.

Are we really facing a problem with monopolies in Canada? Even among unionized companies I imagine that competition ensures that market forces are at work.

[Brendan Kooy]

We are absolutely dealing with monopolies.

Mr. Reid went over several examples in Ontario—the City of Toronto, the City of Hamilton, the City of Sault Ste. Marie, and soon, it appears, the City of Waterloo as well. In Manitoba, there's Manitoba Hydro work and the East Side Road project. In B.C. there's all of the BC Hydro work that's being done in the Columbia River basin. Those are all situations where if you're not a member of the right union, and in those cases, the international building trades unions, you have no access to that work.

Do I submit that's a monopoly? Yes, absolutely.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

You're out of time, Mr. Aubin.

Next is Ms. St-Denis.

[Lise St-Denis, Liberal, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

Thank you Mr. Chair.

I will continue in the same vein as my colleague.

You say that there are cost increases of 10% to 40%. Can you explain the reasons for these increases?

You say that when there is a closed tendering process, there may be cost increases. How can one show that these costs would not be as high if it had been an open tendering process?

Is it implied that workers are not members of the right unions. Is it because your unions have less money? Yet you say that they are paid the same way.

What are the differences that explain these cost increases?

[Sean Reid]

Mr. Atkinson might have some interesting thoughts on this as well, but I will start by saying that one of the significant differences between certain construction companies is the model of labour of the work that gets done.

In our context, with the CLAC and with our contractors, there's only one union for all the workers employed in that. If I'm an electrician and there's a board in the way and I need to get at the transformer that is behind that board, in a craft-based or traditional building trade model, I have to wait until the labourer has finished what he's doing so he can come over and move that board before I can access the transformer and start working on it.

That creates jurisdictional issues and productivity drains that don't exist in either a non-union environment or an alternative union environment. That's one example of the differences in the models. There are advantages in some of the ways that a traditional building trade is organized and there are advantages associated with our models.

I think where you see the cost inflation is when you take out all of the innovation associated with the way that businesses are organized and the way they manage productivity in their workforce and simply scale it down to one or two of virtually the same kind of company. That's where you see the price inflation.

[Michael Atkinson]

I would say that any time those artificial restrictions are imposed on competition, whether it's through closed bidding, putting in regional preferences and keeping non-local contractors out, etc., one sees immediately that prices, innovation, productivity, etc., suffer as a result. There's nothing that breeds productivity and innovation more than competition, open, level, fair competition.

I think that's a principle that has been embraced by our country, certainly in our international dealings, certainly through the Agreement on Internal Trade, etc., and it's not a situation of saying—we certainly aren't saying—that unionized construction costs more than non-unionized construction. What we're saying is that when you restrict competition in an arbitrary manner like this, you stifle the competitive pressures that thrive in a free and open marketplace, and that cannot work to your benefit.

[Lise St-Denis, Liberal, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

For generations, people in Canada have fought for well-organized unions and good working conditions. However, you are telling me that it would be much more advantageous for you if workers were not unionized or if they were part of a union, and I don't really understand this part, where anyone can do whatever they wish.

Unless I am mistaken, that's what you are telling me.

[Michael Atkinson]

No. What I'm saying is as a taxpayer here in the city of Ottawa, I would be very upset with the local city government if they restricted bidding to city of Ottawa contractors only in the same way. Whether they are union or non-union doesn't matter. You're restricting competition for an arbitrary idea that somehow you're going to help the local economy by restricting competition to only Ottawa-based contractors.

That's the point we're trying to make, that these are artificial restrictions on competition. Again I want to underscore we're not union bashing here. Our association and I would be in front of you to complain just as vehemently if a municipality were restricting competition to non-union firms only.