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.
8:55 a.m.
Liberal
Ken Hardie Liberal Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC
Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you for being here, Mr. Schwartz.
Following-up on Alain's questions, which I thought were excellent, are you going to learn things?
Is this an opportunity to identify, define, codify, a broader range of community benefits that might not be as obvious, or might not have been asked for in the past?
8:55 a.m.
Director General, Commercial and Alternative Acquisitions Management Sector, Public Services and Procurement Canada
I would say, absolutely, yes.
At this time, if our requirements are to build a new bridge or to do some maintenance on a building, we will have technical specifications, we'll have requirements, a statement of work, effectively. The other benefits that accrue, such as community benefits, are not something that we currently measure.
I believe that this legislation will provide the opportunity for us to collect that information, and that will inform, then, government. It will provide PSPC officials, anyway, with information that we can provide, as well as information or recommendations to government on whether communities are benefiting from those investments, to the extent that they're measured through this bill.
8:55 a.m.
Liberal
Ken Hardie Liberal Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC
Currently, or in the future, do you actually consider going back into the community, and doing some informal surveys with local businesses or local agencies, to see if they have recognized something over and above the delivery of what's been contracted for?
9 a.m.
Director General, Commercial and Alternative Acquisitions Management Sector, Public Services and Procurement Canada
It would be premature to declare or make a statement with respect to what we anticipate doing. This is the starting point. Once we start collecting the information, if we require modifications in terms of the regime.... For example, right now, it's envisioned that bidders would provide the information, and they would do a self-assessment to provide that information.
Assuming all of that information comes in, in a reasonable manner, then that could be sufficient. If that information is not.... It'd be a bit of a conjecture, on my behalf anyway, to say what other regime we would put in place.
9 a.m.
Liberal
Ken Hardie Liberal Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC
We would be looking to perhaps formalize performance measures off into the future once we got a better idea of what the possibilities are.
We all have to continuously remind ourselves that the focus here is on public works. It's not necessarily the grand broader plan that the government has to put infrastructure into the provinces and municipalities across the country. This is specifically on the facilities and operations of the government itself, at this point.
Do you see the potential for the application of something like this to that broader range of activities that the government takes on?
9 a.m.
Director General, Commercial and Alternative Acquisitions Management Sector, Public Services and Procurement Canada
One of the challenges with respect to this bill, from a departmental perspective, is the scope. As you indicated, it's only for those contracts issued and only applies to what is done by PSPC.
We manage 30% of federal assets. All government construction activities represent 1% of the Canadian commercial construction industry. We're an important player, but a very small player in the grand scheme of construction contracts.
I can't speak for other jurisdictions, municipal, provincial, and its extension—
9 a.m.
Liberal
Ken Hardie Liberal Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC
I understand.
One of the things that comes back to bite any government is the announcement that there's a large contract offered for something to be done and, subsequently, somebody finds out that government has gone offshore to buy things that were available in Canada.
Are there some tests that you have in your current procurement system, and could you foresee having, not necessarily a “buy Canada” policy, per se, but certainly something that puts that filter there in the decision-making process?
9 a.m.
Director General, Commercial and Alternative Acquisitions Management Sector, Public Services and Procurement Canada
The trade agreements that Canada has with our trading partners provide very interesting and very advantageous opportunities for Canadian companies to export. It's a quid pro quo type of arrangement where foreign companies then have access to Canadian markets.
The current trade agreements, like NAFTA specifically, would prohibit what we call offsets, where we could put something in specifically saying that for this particular contract, it has to go to a local or a Canadian company, generally speaking. That's the trade-off of trade agreements. You get access to foreign markets and provide access here. The current trade agreements would prohibit doing that.
With respect to local, or with respect to the construction industry as a whole, as your colleague, the hon. member mentioned, the reality is that construction is very local now. There are not many companies from Victoria that are bidding on a job in Edmundston, New Brunswick. There are benefits that accrue locally in that particular industry just because it's advantageous.
There's no denying the fact that larger procurements have a consortia of Canadian and international businesses and different suppliers in that supply chain.
9 a.m.
NDP
Robert Aubin NDP Trois-Rivières, QC
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I would like to take two minutes of my time to table a motion. This may not be the best time, but I have been trying to do it for weeks, and interest in hearing the witnesses has always made me put it off.
I would like to table the following motion, which the clerk received a few weeks ago:
That the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities conduct a study on aviation safety.
If the members of the committee like, I can explain the need for this motion. Otherwise, I will leave it and go back to the witnesses.
9:05 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Judy Sgro
At this particular moment, we now have you giving us notice. Do you want to go back to deal with this issue now?
9:05 a.m.
NDP
9:05 a.m.
Liberal
9:05 a.m.
NDP
Robert Aubin NDP Trois-Rivières, QC
In that case, I would like us to do it now, so the answer can be public, please.
9:05 a.m.
Liberal
9:05 a.m.
Conservative
9:05 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Judy Sgro
Could we complete this, and then do it before we go in camera? It's up to you. If you want to deal with it now, we will deal with it now.
9:05 a.m.
NDP
Robert Aubin NDP Trois-Rivières, QC
If we do it in the public session, it could be after our examination of the bill.
December 1st, 2016 / 9:05 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Judy Sgro
If it's all right with you, let's hold it until we finish with Bill C-227, and then we'll deal with this. Then we'll go in camera to deal with other business.
Is that all right, Mr. Berthold?
