Transport Committee on Nov. 1st, 2016

[Christopher Smillie]

Sure. You do that up front, too. You have conversations with contractors on an ongoing basis about underprivileged youth in downtown Toronto who need access to apprenticeship programs. You can constantly talk about funding those kinds of training programs. We have the Hammer Heads program in Toronto, where we take folks from underprivileged areas in downtown Toronto and pay to train those people up to get them ready to go into apprentice programs. If you have some sort of view to the future, you can continue to do that stuff with young people, or any group you decide.

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

Perfect. I think there is probably a minute or so for....

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

You have 30 seconds. I don't think you can do much with that.

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

Okay, if I get a chance to come back to you, Mr. LePage, I'll let you think on my question.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Mr. Hardie, go ahead.

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

What I've gathered so far is that things that are more or less settled in advance of going out for procurement...the more specificity, the better. I also hear that maybe there is an opportunity to leave some things open to allow the bidder to be a little creative, to come up with new ideas, etc. What is the right balance here? How specific would a call for proposals have to be in order for you to come up with that apples-to-apples comparison between the bids?

[Michael Atkinson]

Maybe I can answer it this way. Depending on what project delivery method PSPC has decided is best suited to the procurement of the asset or infrastructure they are looking at, that would then give you the opportunity to see to what extent the community benefit aspect of that could also be a little more flexible. That decision is always made by PSPC at the outset, depending on what the infrastructure is. Are we going to design it completely and just go out for a price? Are we going to go out to the industry and ask them to design it and build it, and we'll just provide our design concept? Are we going to go to a P3? Are we going to use construction management? That will then dictate to what extent the community benefit element can be defined in the documents. I would suggest that it's the dog wagging the tail rather than the tail wagging the dog in that circumstance.

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

I appreciate that.

Mr. LePage, are there any really notable examples where we've dropped the ball? I caught an allusion early on that perhaps this bill isn't needed because everybody does this already. Is that your feeling, or have there been opportunities missed?

[David LePage]

I think this bill is essential. I think Mr. Hardie has defined it as creating a platform.

When we see governments, whether municipal or provincial or federal, asking about the social impact that's going to come with this project, they're getting very creative responses from the community and industry working together to come up with creative solutions to address particular social problems.

I think we can look at the successes in Scotland. I think with the emerging international trade agreements, if Canada doesn't have something like Bill C-227, we're not going to be on a level playing field on the side of construction and industry. This is an international trend. Governments are setting these platforms; they're creating these arenas for industry, for construction, and for community to work together with government to use existing spending intentionally to create benefits. I don't think this is going on without the stimulus from government saying this is an important use of our taxpayer money.

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Is there something in place, credentials or a reputation piece—I don't know exactly what you would call it—that if a bidder wants to come forward they've got something to demonstrate to the proponent that they know how to do this and they've done well in the past? Is there anything like an accreditation or something that the CSR component is a good, solid, robust part of a particular company's way of doing business?

[Michael Atkinson]

Any time a government says that you have to pre-qualify to bid a project, very often that will be part of the submission to meet the pre-qualification. They'll include that. They'll include for example how many of their people are certified in green technologies, among other things. That's where they would typically do that, particularly because any time pre-qual is required in those circumstances, usually it's more than just price. The PSPC might be looking at the experience of the people they're going to use on the projects. They would look at a number of things. There is an opportunity, depending on the project delivery method.

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Is there a need for a small-project-small-company strategy here? We keep hearing that the small companies represent the largest employment base in the country, and yet when we think of the things that we've been talking about we think of big projects and big bidders coming in. Is there an opening there? Do we have a chance to innovate here?

[Christopher Smillie]

Definitely.

At the end of the day, the number one comment from small construction contractors—we've agreed on this before—is that the FTE, the full-time equivalent, isn't there to train. They don't have the ability to do so.

Maybe we can get innovative. For example, in Germany, the government has a pool of apprenticeship supervisors who go around to alleviate the training cost for small contractors, so if you only have three people in your electrical contracting firm, you can't have one or two of them tied up teaching an apprentice. The government funded apprenticeship supervisors to move around and alleviate that cost burden on companies. That small contracting firm could bring in a trainee. There are lots of things we could dig into, absolutely.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Berthold.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

I listened with great interest to the comments of our colleague who introduced his bill and to those of our witnesses. I have a lot of questions about the merits of Bill C-227 after what I've heard this morning.

I don't think this bill is being studied in the right place. It really should be studied by another committee. It talks about the rules for awarding contracts by the Department of Public Works and Government Services “for the construction, maintenance or repair of public works, federal real property or federal immovables”. All this is very far from our infrastructure investment plans.

Earlier, you made a comparison with the Ontario government's Bill 6, a very comprehensive bill. It probably enables Ontario to attain the objectives that our two witnesses mentioned, possibly even those of Mr. Atkinson.

The first clause of the explanatory note in Ontario's Bill 6 reads as follows:

The Government, and every broader public sector entity ... must consider a specified list of infrastructure planning principles when making decisions respecting infrastructure.

We see that this bill is comprehensive and helps to attain the objectives related to local economic benefits and hiring apprentices. If you take two quick seconds to read the bill, you'll see that it is indeed very comprehensive.

The bill before us indicates that the minister may seek information. Why does it read, “The Minister may ...”? Shouldn't she always do that? So that is one question.

According to the bill, this information that the minister would request would not enable her to demand accountability once the work is completed. She could do nothing else. She might request information before the work, and then she would ask whether what was promised was what was delivered. However, there is no obligation, no means in Bill C–227 that enables the minister to attain the objectives outlined by our witnesses.

My question is for Mr. Smillie.

Do you think Bill C–227 as drafted will lead to training more apprentices? Should we instead learn from Ontario's example and introduce a more comprehensive bill that would address the coming infrastructure plan?

[Christopher Smillie]

If the contractor is required to do certain things by the purchaser of construction, you can be darn sure that they're going to meet the terms of that contract. If we put in consideration of things like apprenticeship ratios or even something as simple as a training plan, you can be darn sure the contractor wants to keep that contract and they don't want to be in violation of it with the signer of the deal. If you don't measure it, it's not going to get done. If you look at sales-people—

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

But this bill does not make it possible to intervene directly.

[Christopher Smillie]

This is the start of a conversation—

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

It does not force the minister to act.

[Christopher Smillie]

You asked me a question, so let me finish it.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Yes, but if you want to finish, answer the question and do not draw parallels.

[Christopher Smillie]

This is the start of a conversation about this issue and I think the Ontario legislation was one way to go; this is another way to go. The Government of Canada could put in government legislation on this, if it so wishes. Frankly, the minister could table legislation tomorrow on this file and I think it would be passed. The ability to talk about this bill, in this committee, I think is valid, so let's do that. You're right, though, the government could do whatever it wants to do and go from there.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

The government can basically do what it wants all the time, we are clear on that. Having said that, we have before us a private member's bill. It indicates that we should inform ourselves about what is happening. If this is so important, why is the government not introducing a real bill? A $120-million infrastructure plan over the next 10 years was announced, yet the interest in local communities would lie in a bill introduced by an MP.

This bill includes no obligation for the government to put more emphasis on the social portion of infrastructure plans. My question has to do with that. First, is the bill in the right place? Next, don't you think that the government's intent, if it is real, should be reflected in a more comprehensive bill, as is the case for Ontario?

[Christopher Smillie]

I couldn't possibly speak for what the government wants, but as a stakeholder, we think this is an important first step, even having the contractor partners at the table today. I think it would be important to ask the Government of Ontario what their opinion has been so far. This committee should call them to speak.

Also, I think it would be valuable for you to call purchasers of construction, like big oil companies that have done this on their own accord, to ask why they've done it and what their results have been. We would definitely support those conversations, but you'd have to ask the government their own opinion on this file. I couldn't possibly comment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you very much, Mr. Berthold.

Mr. Badawey.