Transport Committee on Nov. 1st, 2016

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

I'm going to continue our discussion from earlier and dig in a bit deeper on the matrix. I'd like to get your opinions on what should be involved in a matrix as well as what should be weighted and how heavily each point you're going to mention should be weighted. Let's talk about examples. Should it go towards a design-bid-build or a design-build? Should the purchasing of steel, for example, be bundled in with other purchases or should there be an individual tender? We know how the steel prices can fluctuate. Should it be aligned with knowledge to an asset management plan? It could be a bridge, a road, a building, a municipal project, or any project.

Being handed that plan, what residual benefits can you add through your bid to actually add leverage or value to other financial responsibilities in the future?

I' like to hear your comments on that, because when we're taking this to the next step, amendments to this bill may be needed, which we can actually make at this committee. I say this because, unfortunately with the previous building Canada fund in the last session, this wasn't dealt with, and as a municipal mayor, I've seen those holes. A lot of times those created an inequity in where those funds were going, and quite frankly, a lack of return on the investments that were being made. That's what we're looking for here. We're looking for accountability, return on investment, and ensuring that as much leveraging as possible for every dollar that we spend can happen not just the day of or the year after but possibly even for generations to come.

[Christopher Smillie]

Just quickly, I would put those into two buckets. The first bucket would be economic benefits. The second would be social buckets. Then you'd have to break it from there. In the economic bucket, you'd talk about how and what you want; and then in the social bucket, it would be who you want. How those would be weighted is debatable, but those are the two key categories that I would put them in—economic and social.

[Michael Atkinson]

Well, first of all, I suppose we're now not talking about C-227, because you mentioned the building Canada plan. It doesn't apply to that. But if I were to speculate, if it were to apply to the building Canada plan, the decision as to which delivery method to use would be up to the procuring government, so it would be a province or municipality in those circumstances. They are the ones best suited and best positioned to make a decision on how best to deliver that infrastructure in accordance with their asset management plan; I couldn't agree more with you. The community benefit aspect or how bidders might be able to leverage that is going to be determined by, in the case of a municipal project, the municipality. It is best positioned to understand its community and how that new piece of infrastructure and its construction can provide further and additional benefits. A community expects that; it puts it in its requirements and that becomes part of the contract. That's the way it would work in those circumstances.

I couldn't agree more with Mr. Smillie that what wouldn't work is having a voice from above, from the federal government, saying, “Community benefits shall be for all municipalities.” I'm sure municipalities themselves would have a problem with that because of their different needs and their different requirements.

I would see that decision being made by the procuring agency in those circumstances.

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

Absolutely, and I couldn't agree more. To qualify your comment with respect to the building Canada fund, it's basically about getting a return on the investment of any dollars that are coming out of the federal government, whether through the building Canada fund or through any other processes and/or private programs we have in place.

I want to go back to Mr. Smillie's comment, because he hit it right on the head. This is all about a triple-bottom-line lens. The triple bottom line, of course, is economic, environmental, and social. That enables us to look through that lens, of course with the proponent actually articulating within the bid document that it will be hitting those three points to get the best value out of the dollars that are being spent.

I'd like to turn it over to Mr. Fraser now.

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

Madam Chair, is there any time left?

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Yes, there is still two minutes.

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

Okay. I'll try to be fairly quick then.

With regard to the bill, we talked a lot about metrics but we didn't really get into it in sufficient detail. The only mandatory portion of the bill is that the minister must report to Parliament. Is the appropriate place for the minister to lay out the metrics regarding what's working and what's not working a report to Parliament?

[Christopher Smillie]

I think that's an activity that would happen after the fact. A whole lot of work would go in a year before a minister would come to Parliament and say this is what's happened. I think the reporting function is to try to create accountability and keep focus on those activities, but the bill doesn't specify the work in behind, and to us, that's the important part. As far as the report to Parliament goes, you might not be watching CPAC that day and you would miss it, but it's about accountability and transparency.

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

Sure.

Mr. Atkinson.

[Michael Atkinson]

I would agree it would be Parliament because it's taxpayers' dollars. In particular, if funds are being diverted away from the actual asset itself for some other purpose, I think it's doubly important that taxpayers hear that it was successful and did have a return on investment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you very much to everybody.

Mr. LePage, Mr. Atkinson, and Mr. Smillie, thank you very much for your contributions today. Our time is up, but I think it has been a very interesting conversation for everyone as we go forward in reviewing C-227.

Thank you, folks. Have a good day.

The meeting is adjourned.