Evidence of meeting #37 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 amendment.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Director General, Commercial and Alternative Acquisitions Management Sector, Public Services and Procurement Canada
Yes.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Judy Sgro
All those in favour of amendment NDP-2?
(Amendment negatived)
We're now on amendment NDP-3.
NDP
Robert Aubin NDP Trois-Rivières, QC
Once again, Madam Chair, the bill starts with a good intention, which we support, but we would like it to be more clearly defined or more clearly described.
This is the proposed amendment:
(2.1) The information to be provided must specify
(a) the number of apprentices the bidder plans to employ, broken down by trade;
(b) the measures that he or she intends to implement to help these apprentices complete their training ... [or] apprenticeship ... .
The list goes on. I will spare you my reading the entire amendment, since you have it in front of you.
Very clearly, the time that would be spent on doing this would be time gained at the report stage. I think everyone would win.
I would also note that, according to a study by the Mowat Centre relating to good strategic practices to adopt in agreements on community benefits, these policies have not had great success in the United States, precisely because there was no requirement for clear criteria.
That is the purpose of the amendment submitted. It means that targets will be clear and well defined, so that everyone can be on a level playing field at the bidding stage.
Liberal
Sean Fraser Liberal Central Nova, NS
Thank you very much. Again, I do like the intention. I'm a little reticent when it comes to this suggestion, though, after the questions that I put to the department right now. It seems as though the department isn't particularly well equipped to flip the switch and implement an analysis like this, and that by passing the bill to gain the information over time, they'll know which community benefits would properly form part of the assessment tool, whether that is the number of apprentices or engagement of indigenous communities.
My preference would be to say let's get some experience with the tool and then use the information that we have to build the best framework. I do like the intention, Mr. Aubin, but for that reason I'll not be supporting the proposal.
Conservative
Alupa Clarke Conservative Beauport—Limoilou, QC
Mr. Schwartz, are there not already criteria concerning apprenticeships, in the department?
Director General, Commercial and Alternative Acquisitions Management Sector, Public Services and Procurement Canada
No, but ESDC offers a program. In our construction tenders, it is optional. We collect certain information and we provide it to our colleagues. We have some information, but it is limited.
Liberal
Vance Badawey Liberal Niagara Centre, ON
Thank you, Madam Chair.
As Mr. Fraser alluded, I do support the intent of this but I think with this bill just moving forward it has to mature. We don't want it to end up being arbitrary, or we don't want it to end up not capturing the full intent of the different disciplines in which we're trying to add value to the overall community.
Going back to the comments by Mr. Clarke earlier, coming from the municipal side, I've recognized, going through many tenders, that in fact the SMEs are already doing it. This is already happening. When they're putting their bids in they're actually adding value to their bids other than the bottom-line price that they're bidding at. Therefore, you do find municipalities not necessarily giving the contract, or the ultimate bid, to the lowest bidder because they recognize under that triple bottom-line factor—environment, economic, and social—that this value is being added based on those three components. Sometimes even culture adds a fourth to that, so it's already happening. This will encourage that. It will in fact give the opportunity for that added value to be articulated within the tender documents as they're coming forward.
I want to say two last things. It's also a discipline. It's a discipline by procurement to ensure they're getting full value for their dollar, but it's also a discipline to ensure that when the money is being flowed to municipalities, this discipline is also there for the province. Therefore, as we're moving forward, we ensure that this discipline is there as well for the federal government in terms of its intentions for its own investments when flowing down to the provincial level.
Going back to NDP-3, I do like the intent. I just think we have to mature to that point in time, and we hopefully will get there. That was the premise of my questions earlier, and hopefully we'll get there sooner rather than later.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Conservative
Alain Rayes Conservative Richmond—Arthabaska, QC
Thank you, Madam Chair, but I am not going to add anything. After hearing my colleagues' comments, I am in complete shock.
Conservative
Luc Berthold Conservative Mégantic—L'Érable, QC
Forgive me, Madam Chair, but I am also in shock after hearing my colleague's comment. Since I was expecting him to ask a question, I did not have time to gather my thoughts.
Mr. Schwartz, you seemed to say earlier that the department supported the intention of the bill and the bill itself. However, as the bill is currently worded, which is "the Minister may", it is a political decision at any point.
At what point does the department think there should be a requirement to provide all the information listed by my colleague in his amendment? Would it apply to contracts under $1,000 or $10,000 or $100,000 or $10 million or $100 million? For example, would it apply to the current project to renovate 24 Sussex Drive, with a value of $38 million?
At what point do you think those benefits would be required?
Director General, Commercial and Alternative Acquisitions Management Sector, Public Services and Procurement Canada
That is an excellent question.
We are going to prepare a proposal, which will be considered by the Minister. As I mentioned earlier, we have to avoid having this cover contracts with very small values. As far as determining the threshold, in this case, we shall see.
The criteria that will determine what types of contract will be subject to Bill C-227will be transparent and clear. I hope that members of the committee will be reassured in that regard. We do not intend to consult the Minister or her office on each contract, to verify whether that condition will be imposed. We will have criteria that will, in fact, be transparent to the public.
We are in the process of developing those criteria. We are not far enough along to say that it will apply to contracts for a particular amount of money or to particular industries, or that particular benefits will be required.
Conservative
Luc Berthold Conservative Mégantic—L'Érable, QC
Unfortunately, that does not reassure me. In the past, a politician from Quebec campaigned on "we shall see", and we saw what that led to.
You say there will be criteria and they will be transparent. At present, we are examining a bill that the member who introduced it would like to see enacted, so it becomes a Canadian law that lays down rules to be followed. You are telling me that at this time, you do not have the details in hand that would tell us who will be subject to those requirements. Your department has not yet assessed or examined that.
That kind of amounts to giving the department carte blanche. It amounts to thinking that this is a bill that simply requests information, and telling the department it will be able to do what it likes with it. It amounts to saying the bill was introduced for the sole purpose of showing we were interested in community benefits, but we left it up to the department to do all the work.
Do you not think it is a little premature to pass a bill when we do not really know everything that the resulting legislation will apply to?
People have come to meet with us. Before a bill is passed, they would like to know whether it is going to apply to them. Big corporations can probably wait for the answer, but SMEs in each of our region want to know whether or not it is going to affect them.
I think that the transparent way of doing things would be to determine all of that before passing the bill.
That is my opinion, at least. I understand you and I do not want to put you on the spot.
Director General, Commercial and Alternative Acquisitions Management Sector, Public Services and Procurement Canada
Fine, and I respect your opinion.
That said, I still want to make a comment. The department's intention is to make sure that this does not become a burden for small and medium-sized enterprises. The objective of the bill is to collect information about community benefits and make it available to all members.
Conservative
Alain Rayes Conservative Richmond—Arthabaska, QC
Yes, Madam Chair. I have my thoughts back in order. However, every time I hear things, I get shivers.
You say you do not want to make the job harder, you do not want to create pressure, it will not be the Minister making the decision, and you want to simplify the process to help small and medium-sized enterprises. I hear all that. However, in Bill C-227, which is what we have before us, it clearly says: "The Minister may" and "A contracting party shall, upon request by the Minister, ... ."
In my view, this bill gives the Minister the power to decide whether or not she wants to request information. As I understand it, however, the officials could decide by themselves and would not always be required to go to the Minister, so as not to complicate the system.
I am hearing two different things from my colleagues. It varies from motion to motion and from provision to provision. When it suits, they agree to it, but if it does not suit, they reject it.
I am finding it hard to imagine how this could be requested afterward, when you already have full power to request this in your tenders. Forgive me, but I am still trying to find out what more this bill will add to the power you already have at present. I really feel like I am hearing what my constituents say to me in my riding. I am trying to defend the officials, because I think there are excellent, effective people in the government bureaucracy, at all levels. Unfortunately, I really have the impression that this kind of bill adds more bureaucracy to the machine. I completely fail to see what more this is going to give you.
That being said, this is not really a question. I realize that it is more of a comment.
Director General, Commercial and Alternative Acquisitions Management Sector, Public Services and Procurement Canada
Would you allow me to respond to it?
Conservative
Director General, Commercial and Alternative Acquisitions Management Sector, Public Services and Procurement Canada
Madam Chair, may I respond briefly to that comment, please?