Transport Committee on Nov. 1st, 2016

[The Chair (Hon. Judy A. Sgro (Humber River—Black Creek, Lib.)), Liberal, Judy Sgro]

I call to order the meeting of the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities. This is the 42nd Parliament.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Wednesday, October 5, 2016, Bill C-227, an act to amend the Department of Public Works and Government Services Act (community benefit), is before us, as referred by the House.

We will now turn it over to Ahmed Hussen, if you could please brief us on the bill.

[Ahmed Hussen, Liberal, York South—Weston, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair, and members of the committee.

It's quite an honour to be here in front of you to present my private member's bill, Bill C-227, an act to amend the Department of Public Works and Government Services Act (community benefit).

Community benefits are defined as the social or economic benefits that a particular community obtains from a federal infrastructure project above and beyond the project.

Now that I've defined that, the next step I'd like to take is to address some of the myths that have emerged regarding this bill.

It is a myth that my bill will increase red tape, and that this will be borne by small and medium-sized enterprises. Bill C-227 speeds up the approval process. Once the community is engaged, and it can identify the benefits emanating from an infrastructure project, then they are more likely to get behind the project, thus speeding up the approval process.

It is also a myth that business groups and organizations are opposed to Bill C-227. The Toronto board of trade, the Vancouver board of trade, and the Montreal area board of trade have all identified and endorsed community benefit agreements as good economic policy and as a great way to tackle youth unemployment, as well as to include marginalized groups that are not included in the construction industry.

It is also a myth that there was no adequate consultations regarding Bill C-227.

I consulted extensively across Canada. The groups and stakeholders I talked to include, but are not limited to, the United Way, the Toronto Community Benefits Network, the Atkinson Foundation, the Mowat Centre, Canada’s Building Trades Unions, Hassan Yussuff and the Canadian Labour Congress, the Carpenters Union, the Province of Ontario, the City of Vancouver, the British Columbia, Alberta, and Manitoba building trades, and many others.

The Mowat Centre and the Atkinson Foundation have jointly published numerous studies that stress the importance of community benefit agreements.

I've also consulted other levels of government in many provinces across Canada. Having said that, the consultation process is ongoing, and I have already planned many meetings to continue to consult widely on Bill C-227.

It is also a myth that this bill will make it an obligation on provinces to include community benefit agreements in their infrastructure plans. This bill only applies to federal construction and repair projects. Furthermore, Ontario has already enshrined community benefits in their provincial legislation, namely with Bill C-6, and other provinces have had community benefit projects on an ad hoc basis without a legislative framework.

It is also a myth that this bill will introduce delays in the approval process for new development. This will just be another box on the form that asks, “Will this project have community benefits, and what will they be?”

Now I will give you some case studies. According to a joint report from the Mowat Centre and the Atkinson Foundation, the Government of Canada, the Province of Ontario, and the City of Toronto, for example, together have spent over $23.5 billion per year procuring goods and services, including construction.

Just imagine, ladies and gentlemen, how communities would thrive if even a portion of that had community benefit agreements tied to it. We could deliver more training, apprenticeships, and local jobs. Local businesses would thrive.

Community benefit agreements have been used for years in the United States and in the United Kingdom. There are great examples in our own country that highlight the benefit of community benefit agreements.

In Canada, there is the 2010 Olympic winter games' Southeast False Creek Olympic village. This community benefit agreement was formed to create opportunities for local low-income residents and businesses over the inner city in the areas of training and acquisition of goods and services.

In the Waneta expansion project, the Columbia Power Corporation signed a community benefit agreement with the Ktunaxa Nation Council for this project in B.C., which includes provisions for assistance to the community in small hydro development.

In my own riding of York South–Weston, and in many ridings across the city of Toronto, the Eglinton crosstown LRT project has a community benefit agreement to provide benefits to disadvantaged communities through equitable hiring practices, training, apprenticeships, and local supplier and social procurement opportunities, where possible.

Other provinces, such as Nova Scotia, Quebec, and Manitoba, are either exploring or have already moved towards implementation of a form of community benefit agreements.

In the United States, Los Angeles was one of the first successful pioneers of incorporating community benefit agreements. Since 2001, organizations in this city have negotiated several community benefit agreements, which range from living wage requirements to investments in parks and recreation.

In the United Kingdom, in 2012 they enacted the Public Services (Social Value) Act to promote social benefits through public sector procurement. According to the act, a commissioning authority must consider how the purchase “might improve the economic, social and environmental well-being of the relevant area”, where everyone can get a slice of the development pie.

Madam Chair, this bill is modelled on existing legislation of the Province of Ontario, namely Bill 6. The beauty of this, though, is that through our consultations, we were able to see what is working and what is not working with this Ontario piece of legislation.

Bill C-227 addresses the concern regarding implementation and measurement of outcomes, in two ways. First, it empowers the Minister of Public Works and Government Services to require bidders on government-funded projects to explain the community benefits that the project will provide and deliver an assessment as to whether that project has indeed provided the community benefits. It also requires the minister to report back to Parliament every year on what community benefits have been delivered. Community benefit agreements are also in line with the government's priorities and mandate items, such as procurement modernization and promotion of social infrastructure.

I'm asking my colleagues on this committee for their support of my private member's bill, Bill C-227. Help me to enable communities across Canada to benefit from federally funded infrastructure projects.

I was elected to Parliament to represent my riding, and my role is to ensure that I propose and push for legislation that will benefit my constituents. Bill C-227 does exactly that, by dramatically increasing the local economic impact of federally funded infrastructure projects.

Colleagues, let us move forward on this initiative that will not only benefit my riding, your constituents, but communities all across the country. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you very much, Mr. Hussen.

We will now turn over to Mr. Rayes.

[Alain Rayes, Conservative, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Good morning, Mr. Hussen.

Thank you for your presentation. I apologize for being late. I missed the first few minutes.

I have a few questions about Bill C-227, which I would first like to begin by noting is full of good intentions.

I'd like to know why you think a bill like this is likely to have local benefits in the various municipalities and communities across Canada.

[Ahmed Hussen, Liberal, York South—Weston, ON]

The reason I feel that some projects will have a community benefit component would be the sheer size, and value and money that would go into these projects. I feel very strongly that we should explore and take advantage of opportunities in which we can dramatically increase the local economic impact of certain federally funded infrastructure repair and building projects. If we can extend and stretch the impact of that taxpayer dollar that we are already spending on a project to benefit the community further, we should certainly do that.

Other provinces have done that, municipalities have done that, even the private sector has done that. It's time for us in the federal realm to do this. The model is out there. It has been done successfully. We should definitely do this. It's the right thing to do. It doesn't cost an extra amount of money. It brings community buy-in, because the community sees benefits that they obtain above and beyond the project itself. It's the right thing to do, and we should do it.

[Alain Rayes, Conservative, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Before I became a federal MP, I was the mayor of a municipality with a population of 45,000. While I was reading this bill, I was sincerely trying to see what a bill like this would have changed in the day-to-day of my municipality. It is important to keep in mind that we were already entitled to provincial programs and federal grants.

Generally speaking, when applying to various subsidy programs, all these issues have already been discussed. We must immediately demonstrate that there will be a benefit for the community, otherwise the money will simply not come from the various levels of government. We must meet the standards and comply with the criteria set by the various governments.

I sincerely wonder what more this will bring. Can you give me an example of what you currently cannot do and what this program will enable you to do? I really feel that this is something that is already in the system.

[Ahmed Hussen, Liberal, York South—Weston, ON]

The fact of the matter is that when you are talking about the federal realm, there is no legislative framework that allows the Minister of Public Works and Government Services to embed a community benefits requirement in a contract for a building and repair project. It's just not there. This bill enshrines a community benefits approach in the federal system. That's what this bill is doing. It is also about accountability, making sure that when the minister chooses to use this tool, we also have an assessment of how effective that requirement was, and the reporting back to Parliament.

[Alain Rayes, Conservative, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

It may sound redundant, but when I was mayor, I made grant applications in collaboration with the municipal government. Of course, as soon as something is realized, there is an economic benefit for the community, be it for community work, an arena, or a cultural centre. I think it is clear that, from the moment a program is put in place by the federal government, the goal is to have economic, social, community, cultural, sport and other benefits.

I'm repeating myself. Could you give me a concrete example that demonstrates that we are not able to show economic benefits and where the minister—whether it's a Conservative or Liberal government, that isn't the issue—is not sure who is ensuring that we should add a structure that, to make it happen, would require more time and more work for developers, the municipalities and the communities.

Could you give me one or two examples of this, that justify why you thought about this bill?

I would like to repeat that I think the intent of this bill is noble. We cannot oppose virtue. However, I'd like to know what this will change and if anyone was bullied in the past about this willingness to change and implement this legislation.

[Ahmed Hussen, Liberal, York South—Weston, ON]

There are a couple of things. First of all, you spoke about examples. You can have an example in which you have a federally funded infrastructure and repair project. In the current landscape, there is no legislative framework. There is no tool in the federal box to enable the minister to demand from a contractor a demonstration of community benefits. Let me finish. You asked me a number of questions, so—

[Alain Rayes, Conservative, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

I understand that.

[Ahmed Hussen, Liberal, York South—Weston, ON]

No, no, I have the right to my time. I'm going to finish. Secondly—

[Alain Rayes, Conservative, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

I think it is my priority as member to ask the question if I don't have the answer.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Your time is up, but I am going to stretch it and ask our guest to respond.

Yes, go ahead.

[Ahmed Hussen, Liberal, York South—Weston, ON]

I'm just going to respond. Secondly, this is about accountability. It's about allowing the federal government to catch up to provinces and municipalities that are already doing this. It's also about making sure that we enshrine this in federal law so that, as we move forward on federal projects, we maximize the local economic impact by identifying these community benefits and making sure that we deliver on them.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Okay.

Mr. Badawey, go ahead.

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Before I go into my questions, I think there is a bit of confusion here with respect to some of the questions the member is asking.

I would ask the parliamentary secretary to just comment for a couple of seconds on some of the confusion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

You'll be using some of your time.

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

Yes, that's fine.

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

I'm just going to use 30 seconds.

Mr. Rayes, as a point of information, I think there is a misunderstanding here because this is strictly about federal infrastructures. It does not affect Infrastructure Canada or its relationship with the cities, municipalities and provincial governments. This is about federal infrastructures. That is why the witnesses here today are all connected to that. It's also why it affects the Department of Public Works and Government Services Act and not Infrastructure Canada.

That's just a clarification on that point.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you, Mr. Rodriguez.

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I have a question for the presenter. Well done. I have to say, this is something that we've discussed from the outset, when we first started on this committee, especially at it relates to accountability and the matrix of giving out a lot of the infrastructure laws that will be given out.

Can you go into a bit more detail with respect to the accountability, performance measures, and returns on investment? When you are a mayor for 20 years, like me, you recognize at the municipal level that this is a must: you must be accountable with the taxpayer dollars. You also become an enabler, and you put a mechanism in place to put a discipline for those you are doing business with to really promote value engineering, on the part of the proponent as well as those who will be representing the proponent. You put an emphasis on asset management, a disciplined structure of asset management, to enable other projects to benefit from the project that you are investing in today. Also—again, I'll repeat myself—you are promoting return on investment, both current and the residual benefits, based on that project and other projects in the future that it may attach itself to.

If you can comment on some of those benefits that your bill is going to attach itself to, I'd appreciate that.

[Ahmed Hussen, Liberal, York South—Weston, ON]

On the accountability piece, this bill empowers the Minister of Public Works and Government Services to require, for the first time, bidders on government contracts to demonstrate community benefits above and beyond the project itself; and to demand, from those same contractors, when that tool is used, an assessment of whether those community benefits were in fact delivered.

So there's a two-part process there. Then there's a third process in which the minister reports back to Parliament on whether those particular projects did indeed deliver community benefits to those particular communities.

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

I want to dig a bit deeper, because this is about accountability. It's about ensuring that the taxpayer dollar goes as far as it can with respect to the process. We see often that when projects are not done according to an accountable process, they might go awry, especially the bigger projects.

With that, to dig a bit deeper, how do you see value engineering as well as asset management and it attaching itself to not only the project that's being spent on but other projects that it might attach itself to? How do you see this bill as being a benefit to that?

[Ahmed Hussen, Liberal, York South—Weston, ON]

I see it as being a benefit in the sense that once you refine that community consultation process to identify community benefits, it will build the intelligence and the institutional memory for the federal government to continue to apply this process and continue to refine not only the consultation process but also the identification of the community benefits process. We can continue to do that as we go forward with different communities across the country, taking into concern local circumstances.

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

Do you find that this mechanism, or this enabler—you used the word “enable” before, and I think it's the proper word to use—will put a discipline into those contractors, those who are bidding on a project, to ensure that budgets are met, time frames are met, and, to go back to value engineering again, the project will in fact be designed in the best interests of the taxpayer?