Transport Committee on May 23rd, 2013

[Michael Harris]

This would create a union monopoly and that really necessitates a private sector oligopoly.

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

Are you aware of the existence of the Competition Bureau in Canada? Its mandate guarantees competition, and effectively bans monopolies. Isn't this closed tendering precisely the opposite, in that it guarantees a monopoly and bans competition?

[David McDonald]

We've looked at that in my past experience on the board of Merit, and talking to people from Merit Ontario and Merit Canada. We've looked at that option and have been told that it's very iffy, going to the Competition Bureau. We've also looked at the charter challenge issue. Essentially, on both counts, we're trying to get a political solution, rather than have somebody tell us that it's before the courts and to forget about it for now.

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

Do I have any time left?

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

No, your time has expired.

Mr. Holder, you have seven minutes.

[Ed Holder, Conservative, London West, ON]

It's rather interesting and I appreciate our guests' testimony today. It will help round out some of the considerations as we go through this study.

As I've thought about it, it takes me back to our most recent meeting earlier this week. We had representatives who spoke against a closed shop. I think Mr. Aubin made a good point. We've heard a number of witnesses who were opposed to a closed shop. We've heard both sides, but there have been a number who have talked about the closed-shop scenario.

It seems to me that we're always talking about the financial piece, and I understand the financial piece. Surely, 27 individual firms—to use your number, Mr. Harris—is better than two, from a competitive perspective.

I was struck by what you said about the bill. The first word you used was “fair”. I asked this question last week, but I need both of your perspectives. We all have a responsibility to taxpayers at any level of government, and I would presume that we take that as one of the paramount considerations.

Assuming there was talent there, whether it was union or non-union.... I guess there are two questions. First, let me ask directly, are you non-union? Can I ask you that as a direct question? Are you against union labour?

[Michael Harris]

I don't have an affiliation obviously, but absolutely not. I believe there is lots of room in Ontario and Canada for both union and non-unionized labour to perform the tasks at hand.

[Ed Holder, Conservative, London West, ON]

Let's come back to what I talked about last week. I want to come back to where I thought you were trying to take the bill. I'm not sure that you put enough emphasis on it. Where is the moral imperative here? Whether you're a union worker, a non-union worker, in a closed shop or an open one, I don't care. I don't think the taxpayer particularly cares as long as it's what we used to talk about: equal pay for work of equal value. It's almost that scenario.

From a straight fairness standpoint, what's your perspective? I think I have a sense of it, but I need to hear it clearly. How is it fair that people, just because they do not belong to an organized labour organization, should be shut out of the ability to quote?

By the way, I think the contrary is true too—it shouldn't be the other way either. People who work in a union environment should not be shut out of quoting in any municipality just because they belong to a labour union. Do you have a thought on that? I want you to be really clear so I can understand this.

[Michael Harris]

This is about fairness. I've said regardless of one's affiliation with a particular union or a non-union, they should have the right to work on publicly funded infrastructure projects. This will ensure that taxpayers get the highest quality at the lowest cost. This is not about union or non-union. This is about fairness, ensuring that contactors, workers who are eligible and are qualified, have the ability to price and work on and compete for public infrastructure projects in Ontario, and of course across Canada.

[Ed Holder, Conservative, London West, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Harris.

Mr. McDonald, I get a sense from your testimony that you're slanted one way in your perspective. I have a feeling about that, but let me ask you a separate question, and I think it relates to Mr. Harris. You talk about Ontario, but let me say Canada. Coming back to this moral imperative, do you believe there is an obligation to give every worker the right to work regardless of their union or non-union status? Depending on your answer, that might balance everything you've said thus far.

[David McDonald]

That's what the charter says. Government cannot discriminate against employment in the private sector based on union affiliation. I get a great deal of solace from reading that, and hopefully it will one day be true. For years I've been a supporter of the City of Toronto fair wage policy, which calls for open competition with all wages over $30 an hour, and whatever else, without a race to the bottom.

The organized sector seems to want to destroy the fair wage policy by not having a level playing field and not letting anybody else come to play. I do not want to get rid of the labour movement. They give us incentive. If they get better than us, it's competition in how you perform the work. It's creating better mousetraps. They can do it. We can do it.

[Ed Holder, Conservative, London West, ON]

Those are balanced comments, and I appreciate the way you said it. I think what I've heard clearly from the two of you is that ultimately this is about an issue of fairness. I'm not sure why anyone on either side of this table would disagree, whether we have a pro-labour or non-pro-labour stance. I think we'll all pro-labour. I can't imagine that we're anti-organized labour or anti-non-organized labour. Purely from a fairness standpoint and even in relation to the taxpayer, I don't know how anyone around this table could disagree with that intent.

The tenor of your comments earlier were interesting, Mr. McDonald, but I think the way you've summarized that is very helpful.

Mr. Harris, your focus is obviously on Ontario. I have some interest in this. I'm from the 10th largest city in Canada, London, which is very close to your region of three cities, I understand. But it strikes me that what's happened in Hamilton, and your concern of the impact that it would have....

You're here in front of a federal committee reviewing this issue. What recommendation would you have for us? I appreciate you're dealing with your own bill, but I haven't heard a specific recommendation that you might offer to this committee as to what we might consider going forward as we review our own testimony. Could you comment on that?

[Michael Harris]

In my remarks, I mentioned there's a possibility or a conversation to be had on how the federal government can ensure taxpayers that open tendering occurs, not only in Ontario but across Canada. We all know there's only one taxpayer, not a municipal, provincial, or federal taxpayer. They're all the same. There's a discussion to be had on how the federal government through the building Canada fund, ensured open tendering in Nova Scotia.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Your time has expired.

Mr. Sullivan, you have five minutes.

[Mike Sullivan, NDP, York South—Weston, ON]

I'm really getting tired of the anti-union spin that we're hearing all the time. Some of it is true and some of it is not. You stated that there's a loophole. The loophole was actually put there by the Mike Harris government—not you, Mr. Harris but the other Mike Harris—in 1995, when the Labour Relations Act was amended. They had eight years to fix it, but didn't fix it, so there must be something that even the Conservatives in Ontario thought was okay.

I note that Melloul-Blamey, and Mr. Melloul, have contributed to Mr. Harris' election, so there is a pretty close relationship between you two. I know that in the federal sphere, corporations are not allowed to donate to political parties or to candidates, but provincially, that's still allowed and that happens.

In fact, some of what is being complained of is about competition, and that some non-union contractors just don't compete, yet they want to blame something called a closed shop, which isn't actually a closed shop. In fact, earlier Mr. Kooy talked about Manitoba Hydro being a closed shop, and it's not. In fact, contractors have been successful in getting Manitoba Hydro contracts.

So there's an awful lot of misinformation being spun here in order to try to suggest that the rules are bent—and I know we're only talking about Ontario and Manitoba, really—in favour of certain trade unions. We've heard anecdote after anecdote, but nothing really concrete. In fact, we have a Labour Relations Act in Ontario that says if a trade union manages to become certified with a city, that this trade union then becomes represented. That's the way bargaining works in Ontario, and in Canada, in fact. I don't hear anybody here saying we should have a system whereby the people who work here on Parliament Hill should suddenly have to toss away their union certification because the government would like nothing more than for non-union people to come in and start doing the jobs here on Parliament Hill, yet that's what's being suggested here.

The other thing you said, Mr. McDonald, was that the U.S. is a mass of corruption because of project labour agreements. Do you have evidence of that?

[David McDonald]

If you want me to get you some, I'll gladly do it.

[Mike Sullivan, NDP, York South—Weston, ON]

Can you get criminal prosecutions of corruption in the U.S. as a result of project labour agreements?

[David McDonald]

Sure. But the bigger thing is, something probably everybody knows about is the “big dig” in Boston, the most disastrous, publicly financed infrastructure project in North America. That was a project labour agreement. At the end of it, they had to come up with $500 million, basically, to cover the deficiencies in the performance of the work.

[Mike Sullivan, NDP, York South—Weston, ON]

Is that something to do with bad management? Or is it bad labourers? We're talking about the city of Kitchener's transit system. Is that going to be put in by the city or by Metrolinx?

[David McDonald]

That's by the city. The Toronto projects are owned by Metrolinx.

[Mike Sullivan, NDP, York South—Weston, ON]

So those are open tenders.

[David McDonald]

Those are going to be open tenders, correct.

[Mike Sullivan, NDP, York South—Weston, ON]

They already are.

[David McDonald]

Yes.

[Mike Sullivan, NDP, York South—Weston, ON]

Unfortunately, as a result of there being open tenders, there are non-union contractors who refuse to hire locally, refuse—