Transport Committee on Nov. 30th, 2017

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

One of the main concerns that I recall from the witness testimony when we dealt with the previous iteration of this bill was protecting the integrity of the public procurement process, specifically on the issue of ensuring that you're comparing apples to apples. There was some real nervousness among some of the witnesses we heard that suggested it would be unfair if you said, “I want you to build a building with x, y, z dimensions, and tell me what else you're going to give me”, which would potentially create an unfair playing field for somebody who might have a personal relationship with a decision-maker under one government or another, or potentially might come up with an idea that would change the financial dynamics of their bid. Are you comfortable that the mechanism that's in place in this bill specifically ensuring that the requirement of a community benefit is identified before the awarding of a contract will mitigate the risk that the integrity of the process could be jeopardized?

[Ramesh Sangha, Liberal, Brampton Centre, ON]

When we talk about the procurement policy, we as a government have always had an idea to improve the procurement system through modernization. Restricting the bidders of the contract by putting a restriction into the contract won't work, but at the same time, we cannot move away from the procurement system that we already have. We have to follow that. Every government, maybe this government or a future government, has to follow the procurement procedure and system.

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

On the reporting mechanism, I think it's a 90-day period within the end of the fiscal year. There's a mandatory requirement. The minister tables a report before Parliament outlining the community benefits.

Do you think this provision in the legislation is going to ensure public accountability as to whether this bill is doing its job and whether we are in fact seeing enhanced community benefits as a result of this private member's bill?

[Ramesh Sangha, Liberal, Brampton Centre, ON]

My personal feeling is that, yes, once the minister assesses the benefits and the agreement, assesses what work is done on the project and what are the benefits related to the community, and makes a report on that, it will work out.

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

Finally, Chair, if I have a minute remaining, there was a point, Mr. Sangha, where I'm not sure that I'm on quite the same page that you are. It was in response to Mr. Hardie's initial question that dealt with the application of this bill.

My understanding was that it really is meant to deal with public works and government services rather than any project that the federal government is connected to. I was a bit unclear as to whether you said it was on anything that there are federal dollars in, or whether it's under public works and procurement projects that the federal government owns, for example, and where it manages the procurement process from start to finish. Am I correct in my understanding that the application is actually limited to federal projects rather than anything that we put money towards?

[Ramesh Sangha, Liberal, Brampton Centre, ON]

No. It's limited to the federal projects where we are federally investing money in projects.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you very much, Mr. Sangha.

We'll move to Mr. Chong.

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I want to build on what Mr. Fraser just pointed out, because I had the same questions.

The bill would give the minister “the authority to require an assessment” of community benefits, but these communities do not include—correct me if I'm wrong, Mr. Sangha—the thousands of communities across Canada that we would normally be targeting for federal infrastructure dollars, because it doesn't apply to some 3,700 municipalities across this country, whether it's the city of Brampton or the region of Peel or, in my riding, the town of Halton Hills or the region of Halton. The bill clearly states:

The Minister may, before awarding a contract for the construction, maintenance, or repair of public works, federal real property or federal immovables, require bidders on the proposal to provide information on the community benefits to be derived from the project.

It clearly excludes the vast majority of infrastructure projects across this country, the vast majority of which are under the control of either the provincial governments or local municipalities. I think we have to be clear here, as we're studying this bill, that it does not apply to municipally owned or provincially owned infrastructure. It applies only to federally owned infrastructure, such as federal government buildings across the country or federal ports that may be under the direct control of the federal government. It doesn't apply to bike paths, local roads, or other local municipal infrastructure.

I think that's a pretty important point to make. I assume that's the intent of the bill, because I think we'd get into all these problems with federal and provincial jurisdictional issues if we were to mandate that provinces or municipalities start assessing community benefits for their municipally owned or provincially owned projects.

That's the only point I wanted to make, building on what Mr. Fraser said.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Sangha, thank you very much for coming today.

[Ramesh Sangha, Liberal, Brampton Centre, ON]

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

We appreciate it very much.

We are going to go in camera for the next 10 minutes or so to take care of some committee business, so I'll suspend to give those who are not supposed to be here a chance to leave. If you're all supposed to be here, stay here.

[Proceedings continue in camera]