Evidence of meeting #30 for Transport, Infrastructure and Communities in the 42nd Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was benefits.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Liberal
Vance Badawey Liberal Niagara Centre, ON
A road has to be done. You're bidding on a water and sewer project. What value can you add to the future roadwork that has to be done?
President, Canadian Construction Association
If it's in the tender documents and all bidders have an opportunity to make their case, I couldn't agree more: that's the way to go, absolutely.
I should qualify what I said earlier. On a strict reading of the bill, the way it's written right now, it implies that this discussion of community benefits would be after the bids are in. That's why....
I understand your point, and I'm glad to hear it, that the understanding is that, no, this is something that will be defined up front in the bid documents. That's great. We wanted to hear that. But on a simple reading of the four corners of that bill, that's not what the bill says. So I'm glad we've clarified that.
Liberal
Vance Badawey Liberal Niagara Centre, ON
Can you point to the line where it says that? I just need some clarification there to help me out on this one.
President, Canadian Construction Association
Okay.
The Minister may, before awarding a contract for the construction, maintenance or repair of public works, federal real property or federal immovables, require bidders on the proposal to provide information on the community benefits that the project will provide.
It says, “The Minister may, before awarding”, not before going out for bids, “before awarding.” In our language that we use, that means the bids are all in and the selection process is under way, and the minister “before awarding,” is going to go and poll the bidders to find out what's the degree of community benefits or content that you have in the bill.
Now, if we are wrong in our interpretation of that, that's great and I'm very happy to hear today that it's not what this is about, that this is about establishing the community benefits or public policy objectives up front in the bid document. That's great, I'm very happy to hear that.
Liberal
Vance Badawey Liberal Niagara Centre, ON
That's the input that we're looking for. If I can go on, I'm going to allow Mr. Smillie to comment as well, but what I'm also looking for is specific to the matrix—
Senior Advisor, Government Relations and Public Affairs, Canada's Building Trades Unions
I have a comment.
Liberal
Vance Badawey Liberal Niagara Centre, ON
—specific to the weighing. What do you guys expect to see in there to make it easier for you to add that value?
Senior Advisor, Government Relations and Public Affairs, Canada's Building Trades Unions
We support a weighted and upfront matrix.
I want to caution the committee, or caution folks who are thinking about this is, that the issues that local communities face in downtown Toronto are different from what they face in rural Alberta, and are different from what they face in Halifax, for instance. When we're designing or thinking about a matrix, flexibility would be key, depending on a number of public policy items. If we're looking at a weighted matrix in Esterhazy versus Oakville, Ontario, we need to take economic situations into account for those communities. We're happy to be involved in the designing or thinking about these different public policy areas, but again that's up to government to decide.
Robert Aubin NDP Trois-Rivières, QC
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I would like to thank the witnesses for being here.
In the first hour, MP Hussen answered a question and made a parallel between Bill 6 in Ontario and his bill. Without saying that it was a cut-and-paste job, the two bills have obvious similarities. You probably have some experience with the Ontario legislation. So what are the strengths or weaknesses of the Ontario experience that would allow us to improve Bill C-227, where necessary?
My question is for Mr. Atkinson, but the other two witnesses can also respond.
President, Canadian Construction Association
My response is going to be not necessarily specific to what's going on in Ontario, but what's going on across the country, where different municipalities and governments generally are looking at using procurement to advance other public policy objectives, other than getting critical infrastructure into their community.
Our concern is the rigour that goes into that decision of why procurement. It's a fair question to ask. Why is procurement a good tool to achieve that public policy objective, which may be an objective we would all like to see? And two, if it is going to be an effective tool, how are we going to measure? How do we know it's working?
That's what the Mowat Centre said in its study of social procurement worldwide were the two things that they felt were absolutely required.
On the Ontario situation, I think it's still too early to see whether that's going to work or not, but it's so important, because, quite frankly, we don't want to see window dressing. If we really want to ensure we get greater employer engagement in apprenticeship training, then let's find the right measures, and tools, and levers, and push them all. Don't just say, you have to hire so many on a federal project, and walk away and say, we're done, we've done it.
What isn't measured doesn't get done, and if there is no way to measure that, it's too simple to simply say, we're done, we've done it. You haven't done anything. I think that's the key point, that as these policies are put in place, the first question that should be asked is, why procurement? Is this the best way or is there a better way? If it is a way to achieve this objective, how are you going to measure it? How are we going to prove to ourselves that this is actually the way to go?
That is going to be key, not just to the Ontario legislation, but all attempts to use procurement to achieve social or public policy objectives, because from a taxpayer's point of view, and they're ultimately footing the bill, that's accountability: is my dollar actually going to encourage the engagement of more disadvantaged youth, or is this just window dressing?
NDP
Senior Advisor, Government Relations and Public Affairs, Canada's Building Trades Unions
Yes, briefly.
In Ontario, the experience so far has been positive because we're talking about these issues. In addition, we have two metrics that are improved. In 2016, thus far in Ontario, apprenticeship completions are up. There's a public policy issue where we have lots of registrations in apprenticeships but graduation is fairly stagnant. Year over year, in 2016, so far we have more completions. Work hours are also up on a macro level for apprentices in Ontario. Those are the only two specific metrics I can share with the committee today.
NDP
Chief Executive Officer, Buy Social Canada
I think Mr. Atkinson is being a little dramatic. What we realize is that internationally this is not new. We have been doing community benefit agreements. In Canada, if we go back to the 2010 Olympics, these have been community-industry-government partnerships that have actually created greater value for existing purchasing. In terms of how do we measure, it's very easy. We've been able to create metrics around social return on investment that reflect things such as added hours and how much value has been put into local procurement and local employment, or employment for people with barriers. These are not unmeasurable things; these are very measurable things.
I think another thing we can be very clear about is that these are not added costs. These are costs within the contract. So when we think about a project that is going to happen, how do we best look at where we purchase and how we purchase materials that we need, and where are we going to procure them from? Will it be chosen from a local supplier or will it be imported? Is there going to be employment and subcontracting to whomever is the lowest, most efficient, and everything else, which includes a social benefit? I think the examples we know of are not added costs, they're added benefits, and they're driven when government in a contract just merely asks that question: along with price, along with quality, what is the social value that you are going to bring in this bid? It's fair, it's open, it's transparent. The use of a prescribed measurement metric along the criteria of what is the price competition, what is the quality of competition, what is the environmental impact, and what is the social impact, is all fair, transparent, and clearly measurable.
Liberal
Sean Fraser Liberal Central Nova, NS
Thank you very much to our witnesses for your very helpful testimony.
Before I launch into my question, Madam Chair, for the sake of the sponsor of the bill, I have an issue with one comment that was made somewhere along the way. It was suggested that his testimony was simply just one line. I think his answer was a bit broader than that and suggested that there was also an opportunity to explain what the community benefit was.
I'd like to give each of the witnesses a chance to speak to this. One of the things that I see as a benefit from this proposed legislation is that it provides a platform for bidders to suggest how they might meet certain needs in a community.
Mr. Atkinson, your point is well taken. I think you said if you're building a penitentiary with a green space, that should probably be in the specs of the project. All other things being equal, if I know that the bidder on a project plans to hire, let's say, new graduates from the local community college, which will help them stay in Atlantic Canada when we have out-migration of youth, that's a very positive thing. If they're going to hire or contract out work to Summer Street Industries, a group in my community that employs special needs adults, I'd like to give them that platform. I don't see that currently being embedded into practices.
To each of you, do you think this legislation provides a helpful platform to bidders to take part in that portion of the analysis?
President, Canadian Construction Association
It would, if it's defined up front. In the platform that you're giving them, if their response to that platform in any way, shape, or form is going to be considered in the selection of the successful bidder, then Treasury Board requirements, indeed contract law in Canada, requires that you let all bidders know up front that this is going to be part of the selection criteria and how it's going to be weighted.
I have no problem with government establishing those rules up front and saying it's going to give us all an opportunity to meet this bar in terms of employing disadvantaged youth, for example—and we might come up with different innovative solutions—but the government better let us know up front that this is going to be a criterion in selecting the successful bidder. If that's the case, you have to do that up front and it has to be disclosed to all bidders.
Liberal
Sean Fraser Liberal Central Nova, NS
Sure. What level of specificity is required? Maybe we are going to consider youth employment opportunities or other social benefits, but I don't necessarily want to pigeonhole people into having to hire 30 people from Summer Street Industries, to use my example. What level of specificity is required in the bid documents to meet your concerns?
President, Canadian Construction Association
To be honest, it would be better to ask a procurement expert, probably somebody from PSPC who would have to be doing this. I know that one of the things they are consistently concerned about is being able to compare apples to apples and not apples to oranges in those circumstances. There would have to be some ability for them, in a transparent way, to ensure that they have looked at all the proposals in a fair, equal, and open manner. That question is more for them, as to how specific you have to be. I would say that, from their perspective, it would have to be specific enough so that they know they are comparing apples to apples.
Liberal
Sean Fraser Liberal Central Nova, NS
Mr. Smillie, you can go next. Is this platform a helpful thing?
Senior Advisor, Government Relations and Public Affairs, Canada's Building Trades Unions
I'll give you a current state and a future state, to be practical. Currently, if a construction company wins a bid, they call us to say they need 400 carpenters, 25 welders, and 36 bricklayers. That's an after-they-win-the-bid situation. If this bill passes and some sort of matrix is set up, conversations would have to occur beforehand between contractors and labour providers in order to make sure that we can workforce-plan. In my view, the more we can workforce-plan and get the training thing right for industry, the better off we are. We would actually have to have a conversation with five or six of the bidders who are bidding on the project to talk about whether we can provide 19 welding apprentices or 26 carpenters. In our view, for workforce planning, that's the way we need to be.
Liberal
Sean Fraser Liberal Central Nova, NS
Sure. The way I envision this rolling out, rightly or wrongly, is that you might say we need x number of welders, but then you would have some other point in the bid documents that suggests that we'll also consider factors such as local youth employment or training opportunities. Is that something that would be a helpful way to deal with this?
