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.
10:05 a.m.
Some hon. members
Oh, oh!
10:05 a.m.
Conservative
Alupa Clarke Conservative Beauport—Limoilou, QC
No, but that is very serious, Madam Chair.
Under this amendment, the reports would deal with community benefits, and our colleague put it very well: it will be very easy to find community benefits. Actually, projects always produce valuable community benefits. The reports should not address community benefits, though; they should address the real results of each contract.
There you have it.
10:05 a.m.
Liberal
Gagan Sikand Liberal Mississauga—Streetsville, ON
I was just going to say that the amendment accurately reflects the spirit of the bill, because first you receive the report and then you do the assessment, instead of the other way around.
10:05 a.m.
Liberal
Vance Badawey Liberal Niagara Centre, ON
This amendment satisfies two things, something we should be very cognizant of as members of government, and that is, one, accountability, and two, measuring performance on each and every tender that is given out.
10:05 a.m.
Conservative
Luc Berthold Conservative Mégantic—L'Érable, QC
Yes.
It's my turn.
Like my brother says, every time he speaks, I have something to say.
10:05 a.m.
Some hon. members
Oh, oh!
December 1st, 2016 / 10:05 a.m.
Conservative
Luc Berthold Conservative Mégantic—L'Érable, QC
We are talking about the government's performance, and this is exactly what we find unacceptable. The goal is not to assess the government's performance, it is to assess the performance of projects. We have to know whether we have the time and tools needed for assessing projects, and whether each of the projects has been assessed in order to verify whether it produced the most economic benefits possible for the community.
Adopting this amendment amounts to saying there is no longer any need to do an assessment and we are simply going to announce to the public how many community benefits the projects produce. In fact, we can already tell you what the reports are going to say. It might look like what we see in Mr. Schwartz's presentation:
Taking figures from the last three years, we see that 93 per cent of construction contracts awarded in the Atlantic Region went to suppliers located in the Atlantic region. That figure was even higher in Ontario and Quebec Regions at 98 per cent.
So the assessments are going to show that 98 per cent of community benefits are attributable to local enterprises.
The effect of this amendment is to remove everything that might have been worthwhile in this bill, and there already was not a lot. In fact, we know the Liberal majority is going to pass this bill. I think that by removing this last element, the Liberals are simply giving themselves a strictly political tool for advertising the government's performance, and not for highlighting community benefits and the people who do the hard work to develop their own communities.
Thank you.
10:05 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Judy Sgro
Thank you.
Mr. Clarke, then Mr. Badawey, and then I'm going to call the vote.
10:05 a.m.
Conservative
Alupa Clarke Conservative Beauport—Limoilou, QC
I would like to respond to Mr. Sikand.
I understood very well what you meant. There is the assessment report, but the assessment addresses a completed project. It will change absolutely nothing. You can assess the report 1,000 times; it will not change the fact that the project is completed. If it has not produced community benefits for aboriginal people, for the environment, or for women, it will not be possible to change the facts.
However, your amendment is worded in such a way that the Minister will always report the positive. She will never be able to report the negative.
That is my analysis and how I see things.
10:05 a.m.
Liberal
Vance Badawey Liberal Niagara Centre, ON
Madam Chair, I want to be clear, based on the comments from Mr. Berthold, the performance being measured is not the government's. It's the project's.
Just imagine how accountable the government will look when they measure the performance on a waste-water project, because it is attached to the environment, it is attached to economic and/or social benefits, compared with having built a gazebo, for example. There's a big difference in the returns that would otherwise accrue over time with respect to the investments that are being made and the measuring of the performance of those investments, in particular, both the tender and the project itself, and what they add to the overall triple bottom-line lens that this government is looking through.
10:10 a.m.
Conservative
Luc Berthold Conservative Mégantic—L'Érable, QC
Madam Chair, I know my colleague's intent, but the first version did exactly what he said. Leave the bill as it is and it will do exactly what you want.
10:10 a.m.
Conservative
10:10 a.m.
Liberal
10:10 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Judy Sgro
We have to vote on LIB-2.
(Amendment agreed to)
(Clause 1 as amended agreed to)