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.
December 1st, 2016 / 9:30 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Judy Sgro
All right.
Does everyone have the information they require in order to participate on C-227? I have no one on my list, so I'm going to move to clause-by-clause, if that's acceptable to the committee.
(On clause 1)
We have Mr. Aubin's amendment in front of us, replacing line 8 with “benefit means a social, economic or environmental benefit”.
Does everyone have the amendments in front of them?
Do you have them, Mr. Clarke?
9:30 a.m.
NDP
Robert Aubin NDP Trois-Rivières, QC
I would like to ask you a question, Madam Chair.
I would like to know at what point the motion I have tabled will be put to a vote. Are we going to do it now or after clause-by-clause consideration?
9:30 a.m.
Liberal
9:30 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Judy Sgro
He wants to know if we can deal with his motion now. I realize that's my French interpretation.
9:30 a.m.
NDP
Robert Aubin NDP Trois-Rivières, QC
In the hypothetical case that we do not complete clause-by-clause consideration this morning, would the vote on the motion be postponed?
9:30 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Judy Sgro
No, Mr. Aubin, I gave you my assurances that while we are in the open session we will deal with your motion.
9:30 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Judy Sgro
I'm hoping this isn't going to take too long, given the fact that we have quite a few other things on our schedule.
We have Mr. Aubin's NDP-1.
9:30 a.m.
NDP
Robert Aubin NDP Trois-Rivières, QC
What we are adding here is the environmental element, which is not present in the bill. It seems to us to be of the utmost relevance, particularly in 2016. This is something that is everybody is talking about and that applies in all fields. In addition, this bill is directly modeled on an Ontario law that is similar, but includes that dimension.
I have found two very relevant provisions in that Ontario law, and I am going to read them to you here:
1. The purpose of this Act is to establish mechanisms to encourage principled, evidence-based and strategic long-term infrastructure planning ... and protection of the environment, and incorporate design excellence into infrastructure planning.
The other provision, which says exactly the same thing, stresses the following aspects:
... respect and help maintain ecological and biological diversity, and infrastructure should be designed to be resilient to the effects of climate change.
It seems to me that in 2016, this is an issue that can no longer be evaded. This approach seems to me to be entirely consistent, particularly given that the Liberal government has been telling us, since its election campaign, that it wants to marry economic development and respect for the environment. We therefore believe that it should be included in the bill.
I have other arguments to show the appropriateness of this amendment, if necessary. However, I am going to stop here and see what my colleagues' reactions are.
9:30 a.m.
Conservative
Luc Berthold Conservative Mégantic—L'Érable, QC
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I would like to know how environmental benefits can be defined, Mr. Aubin. In your opinion, what do environmental benefits in the field of the construction and renovation of government buildings consist of?
I can understand that environmental requirements would be included in invitations for proposals, for example in terms of energy savings. However, in order to understand the meaning of the amendment you are proposing better, I would like to know how you define environmental benefits.
9:35 a.m.
NDP
Robert Aubin NDP Trois-Rivières, QC
There is what you have mentioned, but there is also all of the greenhouse gases produced during the infrastructure construction and over its life, after that. There are also all the benefits that the community will want to see. As we know, people are increasingly concerned about their environment. For that reason, if new infrastructure is built in their neighbourhood, they want special attention to be paid to environmental issues.
9:35 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Judy Sgro
Thank you very much. Are there any other comments?
(Amendment agreed to)
We're now on amendment NDP-2.
Mr. Aubin, do you want to speak to this?
9:35 a.m.
NDP
Robert Aubin NDP Trois-Rivières, QC
Madam Chair, I think the amendment speaks for itself. In fact, it is about taking the bill from being something hoped for, or wishful thinking, into actual reality, and asking that the Minister require it.
The only change involves replacing the words "may require" with "must require". That would also eliminate any idea that might seem arbitrary. Whom would it be required of, and whom would it not be required of? That is the meaning of the amendment.
9:35 a.m.
Liberal
9:35 a.m.
Liberal
Ken Hardie Liberal Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC
The amendment looks at the world as it probably should be at some future date. This bill is deliberately simple and meant to be at this point, a relatively loose framework until we find out a few things through experience. I could support this amendment perhaps a year or two years from now, but at the beginning it probably imposes too many restrictions or too many obligations on the process that I don't think people are ready for just yet.
9:35 a.m.
Conservative
Luc Berthold Conservative Mégantic—L'Érable, QC
I understand my colleague's comments, but I have two major questions.
First, we cannot ask for something before awarding a contract. Mr. Schwartz, I think you talked about this in your introduction. It has to be requested during the bidding process, so that it applies equally to everyone.
This amendment means that before awarding a contract, the Minister could require that bidders do something. In my opinion, however, the process to lead to some confusion, and that could cause problems.
Second, there is an issue of the size of the contracts. Every contract you award is a tendered contract. If you have a window replaced, will the bidder have to respond to the information requested, in order to do it?
Are you reading it the same way as I am, in this case?
9:35 a.m.
Director General, Commercial and Alternative Acquisitions Management Sector, Public Services and Procurement Canada
Absolutely, that would be one of the considerations. In fact, when you remove the word "may", that means that all bidders have to meet the same criteria.
For example, in the case of a small plumbing contract or an electrician who comes in to repair the elevator, that would mean a lot of administrative work for us. However, and this is the most important thing, it would create a burden for small and medium-sized enterprises.
9:35 a.m.
Conservative
Luc Berthold Conservative Mégantic—L'Érable, QC
As you said, if it imposed an additional burden on your services, that would mean additional costs. This amendment could have fairly major consequences.
