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
I am not on the defensive, but I apologize if I did not express myself clearly.
It is the Minister's decision. To simply the administrative process, we will propose a type of contract to the Minister to which this requirement should apply. As you can imagine, we have thousands of contracts. We will submit our suggestions for criteria to the Minister, but she is the one who will decide. It is not the department or the bureaucracy that will decide how to apply this requirement.
Conservative
Alain Rayes Conservative Richmond—Arthabaska, QC
Mr. Schwartz, we are being asked to make a decision on a bill without knowing what type of criteria or projects you are going to analyze or propose to the Minister. At present, we are completely in the dark and so we are not able to make our own recommendations.
It amounts to you asking us to write you a blank cheque, after which you will propose the criteria to the Minister for applying the requirement of requesting information from bidders or communities. You are simply asking us to write you a blank cheque. It amounts to letting the government say, to whoever wants to hear it, that it is concerned about communities, but it cannot tell them yet what those criteria are, and that will be left to the discretion of the Minister and the officials.
I am sorry, but I really have the feeling we have been going in circles for the last four meetings. We are sitting in a public meeting. The people listening to us have to wonder how we can be getting paid today for discussing this.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Judy Sgro
Thank you very much.
I will now call for a vote on amendment NDP-3.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
NDP
Robert Aubin NDP Trois-Rivières, QC
Madam Chair, I will be relatively brief.
In amendment NDP-4, we are proposing exactly the same wording as in NDP-2, which was defeated, that is, "the Minister must ... require bidders ... ." In other words, we are asking the Minister to require the same thing from everybody, rather than leaving herself open to criticism.
I do not think it makes me a great visionary if I think this amendment will suffer the same fate as the second one. I will end my argument here.
Liberal
Ken Hardie Liberal Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC
You're where we want to be. That's basically it, but I think it's too soon.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Judy Sgro
All those in favour of amendment NDP-4?
(Amendment negatived)
We now go to amendment LIB-1.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Judy Sgro
The clerk is indicating we need to go with amendment LIB-1. It's because of where it falls in the bill, so if you wish to speak to it, please speak to it.
That's amendment LIB-1, from Mr. Badawey.
Would you like to speak to it?
NDP
Robert Aubin NDP Trois-Rivières, QC
Madam Chair, I clearly understand the idea of changing it from 15 days to 90 days. The representative of the public service told us there is a certain logic to it.
I would have liked to connect the argument on this amendment with the argument on amendment NDP-5, which gives the report more weight. If the report to be produced is composed of nothing more than a list, it could very easily be done during the work, and so I am not sure that it calls for 90 days. However, if the substance of the report were changed, by amendment NDP-5, I would be more inclined to support it, because then there would be some work to be done so that the report would be more useful.
Conservative
Luc Berthold Conservative Mégantic—L'Érable, QC
There is something I want to understand regarding subsection 20.1(4) as proposed by the bill, which reads as follows:
The Minister shall cause to be tabled before each House of Parliament, within 15 days after the end of each fiscal year or, if Parliament is not then sitting, on any of the first 15 days next thereafter that Parliament is sitting, a report assessing whether construction, maintenance or repair projects have provided community benefits.
Is this one report per project or one report for all of the projects? The way it is worded can be interpreted as if a report had to be made every time there is a construction project. Is it not, rather, a report that will combine the information for all projects completed during a particular period? I am having a little trouble grasping the meaning of the proposed subsection.
Because an amendment affecting that wording has been proposed, I am going to take the opportunity to ask you how you read it, Mr. Schwartz.
Director General, Commercial and Alternative Acquisitions Management Sector, Public Services and Procurement Canada
As legal services did, I had understood that this report would relate to all the projects.
Conservative
Luc Berthold Conservative Mégantic—L'Érable, QC
But the question did have to be asked. As it is worded, it is not obvious that it does not mean one report per project. I do not know how one might go about it, but if this bill were passed, it would be important to clarify it and establish clearly that it is one report for all projects completed during a particular period.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Judy Sgro
I believe Mr. Sikand has something that he's going to be moving.
All right. Is there no further discussion on LIB-1?
(Amendment agreed to)
Liberal
Gagan Sikand Liberal Mississauga—Streetsville, ON
Madam Chair, I actually worked with the legislative clerk and I'd like to move an amendment, but I'd like to refer to him for the technical wording.
Philippe Méla Legislative Clerk
I'm just going to translate it in the proper way. I have an English and a French version.
The amendment would read:
That Bill C-227, in Clause 1, be amended by replacing lines 2 and 3 on page 2 with the following:
“a report on community benefits provided in construction, maintenance or repair projects.”
It basically removes “assessing whether” on line 2 and “have provided community benefits” on line 3.
Liberal
Sean Fraser Liberal Central Nova, NS
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I think it makes sense. What I see the impact of this having is moving from a report that would say, yes, this project did or didn't have community benefits, to one where the minister can actually lay out the success of programs and anything else that was learned throughout the process. I think this is going to be a more helpful version of the clause, which is going to provide more information to the department, so we have a better understanding of what the impact is of this legislation going through. I view it to be more broad and I think that's a good thing.
