Manitoba Committee Hansard — 8 April 2021 (Legislative Affairs Committee, Sitting 4, 42nd Legislature, 3rd Session)

42-3-la4

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

Third Session – Forty-Second Legislature of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba Standing Committee on Legislative Affairs Chairperson Mr. Jon Reyes Constituency of Waverley Vol. LXXV No. 4 - 6 p.m., Thursday, April 8, 2021 ISSN 1708-668X

MANITOBA LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Forty-Second Legislature Member Constituency Political Affiliation ADAMS, Danielle Thompson NDP ALTOMARE, Nello Transcona NDP ASAGWARA, Uzoma Union Station NDP BRAR, Diljeet Burrows NDP BUSHIE, Ian Keewatinook NDP CLARKE, Eileen, Hon. Agassiz PC COX, Cathy, Hon. Kildonan-River East PC CULLEN, Cliff, Hon. Spruce Woods PC DRIEDGER, Myrna, Hon. Roblin PC EICHLER, Ralph, Hon. Lakeside PC EWASKO, Wayne, Hon. Lac du Bonnet PC FIELDING, Scott, Hon. Kirkfield Park PC FONTAINE, Nahanni St. Johns NDP FRIESEN, Cameron, Hon. Morden-Winkler PC GERRARD, Jon, Hon. River Heights Lib.

GOERTZEN, Kelvin, Hon. Steinbach PC GORDON, Audrey, Hon. Southdale PC GUENTER, Josh Borderland PC GUILLEMARD, Sarah, Hon. Fort Richmond PC HELWER, Reg, Hon. Brandon West PC ISLEIFSON, Len Brandon East PC JOHNSON, Derek, Hon. Interlake-Gimli PC JOHNSTON, Scott Assiniboia PC KINEW, Wab Fort Rouge NDP LAGASSÉ, Bob Dawson Trail PC LAGIMODIERE, Alan Selkirk PC LAMONT, Dougald St. Boniface Lib. LAMOUREUX, Cindy Tyndall Park Lib.

LATHLIN, Amanda The Pas-Kameesak NDP LINDSEY, Tom Flin Flon NDP MALOWAY, Jim Elmwood NDP MARCELINO, Malaya Notre Dame NDP MARTIN, Shannon McPhillips PC MICHALESKI, Brad Dauphin PC MICKLEFIELD, Andrew Rossmere PC MORLEY-LECOMTE, Janice Seine River PC MOSES, Jamie St. Vital NDP NAYLOR, Lisa Wolseley NDP NESBITT, Greg Riding Mountain PC PALLISTER, Brian, Hon. Fort Whyte PC PEDERSEN, Blaine, Hon. Midland PC PIWNIUK, Doyle Turtle Mountain PC REYES, Jon Waverley PC SALA, Adrien St. James NDP SANDHU, Mintu The Maples NDP SCHULER, Ron, Hon.

Springfield-Ritchot PC SMITH, Andrew Lagimodière PC SMITH, Bernadette Point Douglas NDP SMOOK, Dennis La Vérendrye PC SQUIRES, Rochelle, Hon. Riel PC STEFANSON, Heather, Hon. Tuxedo PC TEITSMA, James Radisson PC WASYLIW, Mark Fort Garry NDP WHARTON, Jeff, Hon. Red River North PC WIEBE, Matt Concordia NDP WISHART, Ian Portage la Prairie PC WOWCHUK, Rick Swan River PC

63 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS Thursday, April 8, 2021 TIME – 6 p.m. LOCATION – Winnipeg, Manitoba CHAIRPERSON – Mr. Jon Reyes (Waverley) VICE-CHAIRPERSON – Mr. Brad Michaleski (Dauphin) ATTENDANCE – 6 QUORUM – 4 Members of the Committee present: Hon. Mrs. Guillemard, Hon. Mr. Schuler Messrs. Michaleski, Reyes, Sandhu, Wiebe APPEARING: Hon. Jon Gerrard, MLA for River Heights PUBLIC PRESENTERS: Bill 13–The Public Sector Construction Projects (Tendering) Act Mr. Paul Moist, Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, Manitoba Mr.

Kevin Rebeck, Manitoba Federation of Labour Mr. Sudhir Sandhu, Manitoba Building Trades Ms. Tanya Palson, private citizen Mr. Chris Lorenc, Manitoba Heavy Construction Association Mr. K yle Kalcsics, P lumbers & Pipe Fitters, Local 254 Mr. Marc Lafond, Operating Engineers , Local 987 Ms. Aarti Sharma, private citizen Mr. Kyley Parker, private citizen Mr.

Jeff Skinner, I nternational Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 2085 WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS: Bill 13 – The Public Sector Construction Projects (Tendering) Act Darryl Harrison, Winnipeg Construction Association Yvette Milner, Merit Contractors Association of Manitoba Nathan Koslowsky, Christian Labour Association of Canada, Local 152 Mike Martens, Progressive Contractors Association of Canada Bill 20 – The Vehicle Technology Testing Act (Various Acts Amended) Denys Volkov, Association of Manitoba Municipalities MATTERS UNDER CONSIDERATION: Bill 13 – The Public Sector Construction Projects (Tendering) Act Bill 17 – The Drivers and Vehicles Amendment Act Bill 20 – The Vehicle Technology Testing Act (Various Acts Amended) Bill 23 – The Highway Traffic Amendment Act (Control of Traffic by Flag Persons) Bill 28 – The Water Resources Administrati on Amendment Act * * * Mr.

Chairperson: Good evening. Will the Standing Committee on Legislative Affairs please come to order. Our first item of business is the election of a Vice-Chairperson. Are there any nominations? Hon. Sarah Guillemard (Minister of Conservation and Climate): I nominate MLA Michaleski. Mr. Chairperson: Are there any other nominations? Being none–Mr. Michaleski has been nominated. Are there –hearing no other nominations, Mr. Michaleski is elected Vice-Chairperson.

This meeting ha s been called to consider the following bills: Bill 13, The Public Sector Construction Projects (Tendering) Act; Bill 17, The Drivers and Vehicles Amendment Act; Bill 20, The Vehicle Technology Testing Act (Various Acts Amended); Bill 23, The Highway Traffic Amendment Act (Control of Traffic by Flag Persons); Bill 28, The Water Resources Administration Amendment Act. I would like to inform all in attendance of the provisions in our rules regarding the hour of adjournment.

A standing committee meeting to consider a bill must not sit past midnight to hear public presentations or to consider clause-by-clause of a bill, except by 'unasment' consent of the committee.

64 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA April 8, 2021 Written submissions from the following persons have been received and distributed to committee members: Darryl Harrison, Winnipeg Construction Association, on Bill 13; Yvette Milner, Merit Contractors Association of Manitoba, on Bil l 13; Nathan Koslowsky, CLAC , Local 152, on Bill 13; Mike Martens, Progressive Contractors Association of Canada, on Bill 13; Denys Volkov, Association of Manitoba Municipalities, on Bill 20. Does the committee agree to have these documents appear in the Hansard transcript of this meeting?

Agreed? [Agreed] Prior to beginning with public presentations, I would like to advise members of the public regarding the process of –for speaking in a committee. In accordance with our rules, a time limit of 10 minutes has been allotted for presentations with another five minutes allowed for questions from committee members. If a presenter is not in attendance when their name is called, they will be dropped to the bottom of the list. If the presenter is not in attendance when their name is called a second time, they will be removed from the presenters' list.

The proceedings of our meetings are recorded in order to provide a verbatim transcript. Each time someone wishes to speak, whether it be an MLA or a presenter, I first have to say the person's name. This is the signal for the Hansard recorder to turn the mics on and off. Also, if an –any presenter has any materials for distribution to the committee, please send the file by email to the moderator, who will distribute it all to committee members. Thank you for your patience. Bill 13–The Public Sector Construction Projects (Tendering) Act Mr. Chairperson: We will now proceed with public presentations.

I will now call on Paul Moist, Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, Manitoba, and ask the mod- erator to invite them into the meeting. Please unmute yourself and turn your video on. Mr. Moist, please proceed with your presentation. Mr. Paul Moist (Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, Manitoba): Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee. My name is Paul Moist, I'm a research associate with the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives. We're a non -profit, independent research orga - nization and we provide public commentary on many issues, including Bill 13 tonight.

We support the broad positions that have been outlined by the Manitoba Building Trades and the Manitoba Federation of Labour. Secondly, we oppose the ending of quality project labour agreements, which have existed in Manitoba for over 50 years and support good-paying jobs, worker training and safety on all government project construction sites. I also had distributed to committee members, in addition to this presentation, a bit of a historical document by author Doug Smith. Project labour agreements were brought into Manitoba by the Conservative government of Duff Roblin, based on problems–and this

article from Mr. Smith talks about problems at the Kelsey and Grand Rapids as those generating stations were being developed. We reject the characterization of PLAs as forced unionization. Manitoba courts have rejected this assertion by the merit contractors, as did the Supreme Court of Canada in refusing to hear their 2012 legal challenge. We oppose the damage that Bill 13 will impose on Manitoba's skilled trades workers. Allowing private firms to pursue more profits by paying workers less is simply wrong and it turns back the clock, as I say, over five decades. The

article by Mr. Smith, which I've had cir - culated to each of you, is from 2017. And one quote from it, historically, the reason for PLAs, if wage rates were fixed, contractors would be obliged to compete, based on skill and ability, rather than their ability to cut wages. And that's part of Mr. Smith's passage. He talks about a former member of the Legislature, the late David Orlikow, who went on to a career as an MP, but in 1959, he was a member of the Legislature for the Co -operative Commonwealth Federation, and he spoke to the Legislature about what was existing on hydro construction sites prior to Mr.

Roblin's government bringing in project labour agreements. We think that Manitoba would be my –wise to look west to British Columbia. They have now enacted community benefit agreements in 2018, and four points on those include: maximizing apprenticeship opportunities on major public infrastructure projects; priority hiring and

April 8, 2021 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 65 training for Indi genous peoples and women; wage alignment to prevailing industry rates to promote good wages for all, wages able to support families; and, lastly, every collective bargaining agreement must include a no- strike clause, ensuring no labour disruptions, once you've signed on to a project labour agreement. I'll wrap up, Mr. Chairman, by saying, like BC, Manitoba faces skilled trades shortages and a shortfall in terms of private sector apprenticeship oppor - tunities.

The COVID pandemic underlines the im - portance of strong support systems to sustain labour force participation rates. Building trades unions have invested millions in training facilities. It's interesting to note that many who are opposed to project labour agreements are not themselves involved in trai ning skilled trades workers. For these groups, it's the bottom line only that is driving their opposition to project labour agreements.

And this stance found its way into the Conservative Party election platform in 2016, when the PCs said competing in the election, quote, shop smarter with government purchasing by reducing the number of untendered contracts and ending forced unionization of company employees in order to work on public contracts. As mentioned, project labour agreements do not force unioniza tion on anyone. They do promote fairness and prevent a free ride for those who do not invest in either trades training or apprenticeships. We submit that Bill 13 should be withdrawn, Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

If there's any questions, I'm happy to try to answer them. Mr. Chairperson: Thank you for your presentations. Do members of the committee have questions for the presenter? Hon. Ron Schuler (Minister of Infrastructure): Yes. Thank you very much, and, Mr. Moist, great to see you again. Very unique wa y of doing business these days, where we do it remotely and, anyway, nice to see you up on the screen. Thank you very much for your comments, and I will allow others on the committee to ask some questions. Mr. Matt Wiebe (Concordia): Well, thank you very much, Mr. Moist, for joining us here this evening.

It is good to see you and really good to have such a well -researched paper for us to digest as a committee. I'm always appreciative of the work that the CCPA does, in terms of doing the research and making sure that everything that's presented here before the committee and in other formats are –is always well-researched and always something that we can rely on and we can work with as a–as legislators. So this is very well presented. Thank you very much. My question is just about, sort of, the projects that would fall under these project labour agreements.

Just wondering what the, you know –sort of –looking forward in terms of what we might expect in Manitoba, what are some of the projects that might be affected by this change and this actual ban of project labour agreements that's being proposed here by this legislation? Mr.

Moist: Well, thank you for the question, and through the Chair, two most recent examples that come to mind, and there's upcoming infras tructure that all parties are asking for, but the two expansions of the floodway since the flood of the '97 were very labour-intensive projects and they were 'encapshulated' with project labour agreements and Hydro development projects, two of whom have recently been in the news a fair bit.

They, too, had project labour agreements. * (18:10) Mayor Bowman spoke yesterday on the provincial budget, and he's talking about multi-billion dollar requirements for correcting our North End treatment plant, separat ing sewers–the combined sewer systems in the older parts of Winnipeg. You can expect that those would be largely tendered projects to private firms–the public sector doesn't do massive projects like that–but they would fit right up in the ballpark of a project labour agreement.

So, Manitoba is, like all provinces, facing many infrastructure needs and asking of the federal govern- ment, quite appropriately–all parties in the Legislature are doing this–quite appropriately asking for support from the federal government to build our province, and these massive projects –not small-scale projects, but massive construction projects –Premier Roblin decided to take wage competition out of the picture by signing project labour agreements.

It's no different than the c urrent government bringing in place a mandatory requirement for para - medics to join the College of Paramedics that they've formed since 2016. There's many things in society that are mandatory. In the case of paramedics, the Province, in their wisdom, has decided that there should be a central body that, for professional reasons, all paramedics must belong to.

66 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA April 8, 2021 Project labour agreements mean that all workers belong to them and enjoy a living wage. They do not have to sign a union card–they should, in my vi ew– but there is no forced unionization, but it's just as Ivan Rand decided in the 1950s, nor is there a free ride. All members will pay dues because they benefit from the negotiations, in this case, of the building trades.

And if it's fine in society to have mandatory affiliation to various bodies–and I believe it is in the public interest, it's absolutely in the public interest, to have fair wages and not to have a race to the bottom for any worker in Manitoba. Hon. Jon Gerrard (River Heights): Unmute. There we go. Now, my question, Mr. Moist, is this: If you can provide a little bit more detail. I see that this

article talks about the fact that the construction of the Kelsey and Grand Rapids Hydro stations were marked by conflicts and controversies that proved embarrassing to the provincial government and to Manitoba Hydro. Can you expand a little bit about what happened at those two dams that was the–well, the starting point for having project labour agreements? What sort of problems were there? Mr. Chairperson: Mr. Moist, and if I could ask you to just answer the question quickly as your time will be running out. Thank you. Mr. Moist: Thank you for the question.

MLA Orlikow, in 1959, was barred by the companies from attending on- site. He was up there visiting workers. He was then allowed in to see the workers at Kelsey. He'd reported back to the Legislature, seven-day-a-week operations, daily shifts of 11 and a half hours and, under certain provisions, a maximum work week of 80 and one half hours at straight-time rates. They talked about forestry workers clearing the bush up there for construction of the Hydro project, supposed to be paid $150 a week, but the contractor took half of that and paid them $75.

On paper, it appeared that the forestry workers were making X, but the testimony of Mr. Orlikow was they were making Y. So, there were countless examples of shoddy treatment of workers on these sites– Mr. Chairperson: Thank you. [interjection] Hi. Mr. Moist? Thank you. The time for questions is over for this presenter. I will now call on Kevin Rebeck, Manitoba Federation of Labour, and ask the moderator to invite them into the meeting. Please unmute yourself and turn your video on. Mr. Rebeck, go ahead with your presentation. Mr.

Kevi n Rebeck (Manitoba Federation of Labour): The Manitoba Federation of Labour is Manitoba's central labour body. We represent the interests of over 100,000 Manitoban workers, and we're firmly opposed to this bill, as it will ban the decades-long tradition of using project labour agreements or PLAs to build large public infra - structure projects in our province. PLAs ensure good jobs for Manitobans and proper training and safety on public infrastructure projects.

It's disappointing that the Pallister govern- ment would let its narrow, ideological vision cloud its judgment and fail to support Manitoba's skilled workers. By balancing value for taxpayers with investment in Manitoba workers, these agreements benefit working families, our economy and all Manitobans who benefit from the vital infrastructure that's built to last, by workers who make a decent living. Manitoba's labour movement has been clear all along that PLAs are the right way to go because they've served Manitobans well for decades. To put in plainly, if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

Cornell University conducted a comprehensive study of PLAs in 2011. They examined 185 PLA jobs in the United States. It concluded that PLAs benefit everyone involved: the construction industry, con - tractors, workers, lo cal communities and taxpayers. The Cornell report stated that the reason for the industry's reliance on PLAs is clear: they provide value for government and the industry by producing the best work for the money with on-time, on-budget performance.

Because PLAs are negotiated pre-bid and tailored to the needs of projects, they give project owners, contractors and workers a unique opportunity to avoid potential problems that might put up roadblocks once a project's under way. They prevent fly -by-night contractors from driving down wages and providing poorly trained workers to win contracts, and they provide the best value to Manitobans for a large-scale construction projects. They also ensure that workers are paid fairly, benefitting our economy by providing good jobs for Manitobans.

These agreements have delivered valuable and vital infrastructure for decades,

April 8, 2021 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 67 since being introduced to Manitoba by Progressive Conservative Premier Duff Roblin to build the floodway. Under a PLA, common wages and working conditions are established for large groups of contractors and a diverse transient workforce by requiring all contractors to pay fair wages under one collective agreement. Contractors are selected for productivity and quality, not just price. PLAs consistently deliver high-quality roads, hospitals and other infrastructure.

Work environments on these projects are complex and dozens of employers and hundreds to thousands of workers may come in and out over a long period of time, like a Manitoba Hydro dam. In suc h complex work environments, PLAs provide for stability through consistent labour standards, wages and human resource procedures and practices, while also guaranteeing there'll be no strikes or lockouts for the full duration of each project. Without PLAs, governments will inherit unknown risks, creating significant uncertainty about costs, quality and timelines on Manitoba construction projects.

And while right -wing commentators and this government continue to peddle the myth that these agreements are forced unionization, under PLAs any contractor, small or large, union or non-union, is free to bid for work. If they win a tender, then they're required to pay fair wages to their workers and pay a fair share of the cost to training workers. Thankfully, some members of this government have seen the light. For instance, the previous minister of Infrastructure had the courage to tell the truth in the face of this false rhetoric.

According to then-Minister of Infrastructure Blaine Pedersen's comments in Hansard from June 28th, 2016, there is no forced unionization in a project labour agreement. In a project labour agreement, there is not a compulsion to join the union. It's what he said. I'd encourage the current Minister of Infrastructure (Mr. Schuler) to foll ow the lead of his predecessor and admit the truth. And to put some more facts on the table to dispute this government's bogus rhetoric, more than 77 per cent of contractors at the floodway expansion and Keeyask dam projects have been non-union contractors.

PLAs should be maintained in this province. They have tremendous value to Manitobans –they've provided tremendous value to Manitobans for decades, by ensuring workers are paid fairly and by investing heavily in training and skill development. The focus on highly skilled labour delivers high productivity to large -scale construction projects. In fact, the recent floodway expansion under the NDP government came in $38 million under budget, demonstrating the productive value of PLAs.

We know that government s look to find savings on each and every infrastructure project, but short - changing Manitoban workers and compromising on quality is not the answer. Time and again, we've seen that cheap labour is not skilled labour and skilled labour is not cheap. Ask any one who's had a bad experience with a home renovation.

It's better in the long run to pay for the job to be done right the first time than to have to pay twice to fix someone's shoddy work. * (18:20) I want to focus my comments on three key benefits of PLAs: local jobs for Manitoban workers, training and skill development and workplace safety. Manitobans want their government to invest in creating good- paying local jobs for Manitoba workers–Manitoba workers who are building the infrastructure we all rel y on deserve family - supporting jobs, and PLAs ensure that's the case.

Bill 28 will leave us vulnerable to more out- of- province workers, leaving fewer high- skilled, high- paying jobs for Manitoba families to benefit from. Why is the government of Manitoba wanting to make it harder for Manitobans to get good, family - supporting jobs? Supporting local job creation means more of the wages of public projects paid to workers stays in Manitoba and in our economy. PLAs are also effective in engaging Indigenous workers, as was the case during the floodway expansion project.

Manitobans want to know that their government is prioritizing Manitoba's workers and Manitoba's communities first when it comes to building public infrastructure. PLAs do exactly this by setting clear standards that protect local employment opportunities and mandate safe, high- quality con - struction projects that are built to last. If local workers can't benefit from local builds, the Manitoba workforce and economy cannot meet their potential. And if local workers can't benefit from local construction, the Manitoba workforce and economy cannot meet their potential.

Another key benefit of PLAs are the training opportunities they provide for workers from all walks

68 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA April 8, 2021 of life, including youth, vetera ns, women, new Canadians, Indigenous people and visible minorities' access to training, apprenticeship and career advance- ment. We know that in today's economy training and apprenticeship are key to supporting meaningful work for underrepresented populations and help young people build their futures right here at home. That's why all governments of all political stripes have relied on PLAs.

Contractors partner together to focus on training and skill development through PLAs so these projects consistently deliver higher value for money. These investments deliver the most highly skilled and productive workforce in the industry, translating into higher productivity. PLAs ensure we continue to develop talent in the industry. Contractors who want to grow their business make significant investments in developing cutting edge training facilities for apprentices and tradespeople. One of the biggest challenges facing the construction industry today is the need for more skilled workers.

PLAs include provisions for workplace development and apprenticeship programs that train workers for careers in construction, using formal standardized curriculums. It's one of the most significant benefits of PLAs. A highly skilled workforce not only helps to finish projects on ti me and on budget, but also helps to create a culture of safety on the job site. All workers deserve to come home safely every night to their homes and loved ones.

When it comes to protecting the safety of workers on the job, PLAs work well because they pro vide for consistent safety standards across the board and establish committees and forward-thinking protections to address safety and health issues. Getting rid of PLAs would mean more workers in Manitoba would see their right to a health and safety workplace at risk. Safety standards mandated by PLAs are transparent and accountable, with common understandings over what safety means being shared across a project.

Getting rid of PLAs would mean more workers in Manitoba would see their right to a healthy, safe workplace put at risk. The MFL believes that this government should withdraw this proposed legislation because it's a bad bill for Manitoba workers and our economy. It will only lead to greater use of cheap and out -of-province labour and lower safety and training standards on job sites across the province.

We urge this government to follow in the footsteps of previous progressive conservative governments, like those of Duff Roblin, Sterling Lyon, and Gary Filmon and continue to go with what works when it comes to the building infrastructure we all benefit from, rather than pursuing a narrow, ideological agenda that will hurt our economy. The move to ban PLAs is a move towards instability for our workers and communities. This bill is not worth the ri sk to Manitoba workers or to our economy. Thank you. Mr. Chairperson: Thank you for your presentations. Do members of the committee have questions for the presenter?

Mr. Schuler: Thank you very much, Mr. Rebeck, and great to see you at committee. I 'd really appreciate if we could have everybody back here in this room like the good old days, but this is the way we're doing business right now. Great to see you, at least on screen. I did want to just sort of reference, the previous speaker spoke about the BC example and the need for a PLA to protect wages, and that's probably because in BC they don't have prevailing legislation, which we have here. So, in your –it's the fifth paragraph, you mention that fly -by-night contractors could drive down wages.

That actually wouldn't be the case because we have prevailing legislation which protects workers' wages and it is protected right there. So I just wanted to make that comment, and all that this does is it says that when a –contractors or individuals put i n bids, that their union status is not one of the considerations for getting the job. It does not mean that there's less safety or less wages or any of that; those standards still apply, as they do today. So, I guess we can agree to disagree. Great to see you again and thanks for being here. Mr.

Rebeck: Yes, although we do have a Construction Industry Wages Act that creates a real floor, that wages can't be dirt cheap or minimum wage, it still can drive down wage costs and rather than competing on just who gives you the cheapest option of work labour, you can get quality standards that everyone makes a fair and living wage that's consistent, and that driving costs down isn't the reason someone might be successful giving–getting a bid.

April 8, 2021 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 69 Mr. Wiebe: Well, thank you very much, Mr. Rebeck, for your presentation. It was very comprehensive, I guess I would say, and to me, lays out a pretty solid case for continuing what's already working. And, in fact, what's in the past been supported across the board and really hasn't been a partisan issue, it's really been about, as you said, the quality of the work and controlling costs and making sure that there's some predictability there. What I did want to ask you about though is specifically about workplace safety and health.

I know the MFL has done a great job in promoting workplace safety and health; it's been a big priority. And I just wanted to maybe give you a few more minutes just to kind of dig into that –exactly how project labour agreements can ensure that workers are safe and that, you know, that that's a priority for anyone that's doing work on any one of these projects in Manitoba. Mr. Rebeck: Thank you. Yes, a project labour agreement creates a collective agreement, a clear set of expectations and standards that all contractors will adhere to.

So you're setting up health and safety committees that are going to meet regularly and deal with things. It also can create standards that can ensure we have a one-to-one ratio, now that we no longer have that as a leg al requirement in the province of Manitoba. We could, in a project labour agreement, ensure that electricians are going to be working on a one-to-one basis to be safe and not be at risk when they're working as a third-year apprentice and not off working on their own. We can make sure that they are protected and given guidance and instruction that keeps them safe.

Having a project labour agreement gives you some clear parameters, direction and processes to deal with and create space for you to bring forward health and safety issues and concerns. Mr. Schuler: And, Mr. Rebeck, the contracts that we have in place now–and which would be going with in the future –the contracts lay out the safety require- ments and expectations and standards. All of that still applies.

So what would be the difference between a PLA or a regular contract when the only difference is that the status–the unionization or non-unionization status is not one of the things that would be considered when all the safety requirements, the wages are still–the prevailing legislation is still in place? So, what really changes, other than that you can't use the unionized status or the non-unionized status as being one of the things that gives you a leg up on getting the contract? All the rest of it stays, all of the expectations and standards, safety requirements and wages. Mr.

Rebeck: So, one of the things that would change would be the process. So, under a project labour agreement, people are not forced to join a union, but they are given a collective agreement that includes processes like a grievance process, like protection, like knowing that someone has their back if they speak out and they can be free from retribution or other actions that might come back to them, because they have a thir d party who can also intervene and help enforce and ensure safety standards are being met.

It's one thing to have them on paper; it's another thing to know that you have that ability to raise those concerns, bring them forward and have advocates and experts that can lend their support and help make sure that they're adhered to. Mr. Chairperson: Mr. Rebeck, thank you for your presentation. I will now call on the next presenter. The next presenter is Sudhir Sandhu, Manitoba Building Trades. I'll ask the moderator to invite them into the meeting. Please unmute yourself and turn your video on. Mr. Sandhu, please proceed with your presentation. * (18:30) Mr.

Sudhir Sandhu (Manitoba Building Trades): Good evening, again. I appear before you, representing 13 of Manitoba's skilled trades unions and their 10,000 members. You will hear a lot of facts presented to you today, and I appreciate the information that's been tabled by and presented in person –at least over Zoom –by Mr. Moist and Mr. Rebeck.

You will hear a lot of facts and you will have a lot of opinions before you, and I will note that the opinions that you have, as a committee and as a legislature, will be in writing and those that are presenting facts will be standing themselves personally before you through the electronic medium. So I'm going to do something different. I'm not going to rehash the facts that we've discussed and, minister, you will know we have gone over these facts

70 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA April 8, 2021 with you many times and I've always appreciated the opportunity to do so. But let's deal with–let's take a different approach to this. Let's appeal to something else other than facts and opinions. So, Manitoba Building Trades, in late 2020 we opened one of Canada's largest privately owned trades technical training fa cilities. There's nothing like this in Canada. It was privately paid for with private money, without going to any level of government to ask for any subsidy whatsoever.

I would to–you to compare that record with many corporate entities that invest in our provinces and what they seek in return. We ask for nothing. We invested in our province. So, from the outset, we wanted this facility not only to be a centre of excellence for trades training. We wanted this facility to be connected with our community. We wanted to acknowledge the roots of not only our people but Manitobans, Canadians, who have significant differences to our lives and to our communities.

So, in order to do that acknowledgement, to build that connection, our facility has many spaces named after important Manitobans and Canadians. These are people who changed our lives, who built our systems, who built our democracy. I'll name a few of them for you. These people include Sergeant Tommy Prince, a decorated war hero, a room –at least one of thr ee people who have a street named after them. We wanted to acknowledge Sergeant Tommy Prince for what he has done and, Mr. Chair, given your military service, you'll know why that's important.

There is spaces named after Louis Riel, who's widely acknowledged as having created our province. There is J.S. Woodsworth, there's Nellie McClung, there's Helen Armstrong, just to name a few. And then there's one particular name that has a strong connection to what is before us today, Bill 13. One of the spaces in our facility is named after Premier Duff Roblin. Premier Roblin was a person of courage. Both speakers before me have referred to Premier Roblin, who's a person of courage, conviction, foresight. He declined to be beholden to narrow interests or any group and instead, did what was good for Manitoba.

He had the vision to forge ahead with the floodway and, as he did so, he also had the vision to introduce project labour agreements, what are now commonly in modern parlance called community benefits agreements. So, that's his legacy. And as today's legislators, I would like you to think of your own legacy. Will your name end up in buildings or on buildings 50 years after you're done serving? You carry an important torch for all of us. You are our representat ives and your legacy is what will shape our life 50 years from now.

Not mine–I have enough grey hairs to not have expectation to be around 50 years hence, but my children will. Will they remember your names? I say this with the greatest of respect: passi ng legislation like Bill 13 will not create a legacy worth remembering or acknowledging–not a year from now, certainly not 50 years from now. You have choices to make as to how you wish to be remembered and what you wish to be remembered for. A few points I just want to lay before you.

There is no law–there never has been a law in Manitoba that required or imposed the requirement to have a project labour agreement or community benefits agreements, for that matter. There has never been a law. Yet, we are h ere today contemplating a law to prohibit something that has never been required by law. I've spoken to, again, many of you in person, and the factual and evidentiary foundation of Bill 13 that you have in writing before you from the supporters that want this legislation–it is a house of sand. It's a house of cards. It has no factual basis and foundation.

Yet, here we are, insistent on passing legislation that has no purpose, no value, no rhyme, no reason and certainly is not a legacy worth building. Yet again, here we are. We expect that the interests that are pressing for this vacant law will prevail and we expect they will prevail and they will be pleased with what they have accomplished. But I will tell you what will not happen in the future. Both speakers before me referenced Keeyask. Minister Schuler, that is a project that is in your portfolio.

I am proud to say, under the collective agreement and the project labour agreements and the community benefits components of that agreement that have prevai led at Keeyask, we have celebrated now well over 10 million Indigenous hours worked on that project in good, well -paid, meaningful work. That's a legacy that's worth noting. So when it comes to your legacy, this act will ring very hollow. I bear –please forgive me for saying so, but that is as hard a fact as others that have been presented to you before. This is an ordinary act.

It's an ordinary piece of legislation and it has no extraordinary vision or thought behind it to justify it or to give it purpose.

April 8, 2021 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 71 Today, or 100 years from now, this Legislature, your Legislature, our representatives, you ought to be more–you ought to pursue higher ideals and pursuits than allowing a narrow constituency that has filled a fallacious argument that somehow project labour agreements and community benefits agreements harm us, when they do things like generate over 10 million hours on a single project where a constituency that is desperate for work. We simply ask you to stop. Please, just set this aside. Do something that takes courage. Do something extraordinary. Set this aside.

There are people that will be upset with you if you do so, but I will challenge you on one point. They say they will save you money in the absence of community benefits agreements and project labour agreements. They will not quantify in any of their written submissions as to how much money they will be saving this province, saving you as a government and saving the rest of us as taxpayers, because that is fallacy. It is fictitious. Those numbers have never been true.

And minister, I don't want to address the question you raised to a prior speaker, but project labour agreements in Manitoba have never ever, ever–in fact, we would argue it would violate Manitoba's Human Rights Code for the union status of any bidder to be taken into account. That has never been true. That is one of the fictitious things that has been bandied about by those who are proponents for this bill. It is complete fiction. It has never been true. I will stop here.

Thank you for your indulgence, and I just hope that –it is disheartening to me, at this point, and to be at this stage as a Manitoban–forget our respective roles on our day-to-day jobs–that when facts give way and yield to fiction, we all lose. And I hope you will not let that happen. I will stop there and I would be happy to answer any questions. Thank you. Mr. Chairperson: Thank you for your presentation. Do members of the committee have questions for the presenter? Mr. Schuler: Well, thank you very much, Mr. Sandhu, and great to see you. It would be nice to have you at committee, and know Mr. Moist and Mr.

Rebeck also did theirs remote. They were not in the room. And so, just to make that clear, they were not here. But great to see you, and hopefully at some point in time we can get back to normal committees and can greet you here in person. I just want to be very clear that this isn't fictional that we're talking about.

In fact, under the Burntwood/Nelson Agreement, 12.2.1, I'd like to read: Except as provided in letter of agreement No. 3, all employees shall, as a condition of employment and/or continuing employment, be members or obtain membership in the appropriate union of the council and maintain such membership in good standing; 12.2.2: The contractor shall, at the time of hire, advise all employees who are not members of the appropriate union that they are required to secure such membership within 30 calendar days of being hired. So it's actually in the Burntwood/Nelson Agreement. I mean, it is there.

I don't think that we're saying unionized or non- unionized status compromises or harms anybody or any construction project; all –what we are talking about is that there be a matter of choice. And we believe that this is an issue of choice. I understand that, for some, this is a little bit more emotional, and I always appreciate our conversations. I know how passionate you are about this, but this is really about choice and that the –whether it's a unionized or non- unionized business should not play into whether or not somebody can bid and get the contract. * (18:40) And Mr.

Rebeck admitted that you had to join a union. He said so himself, that then you had somebody who had your back. A union can't have your back if you're not a union member. So, Mr. Rebe ck admits it; it's part of the Burntwood/Nelson Agreement. There are precedents where you had to have a union card membership to be able to work on these sites, so, yes, the forced unionization is real; it's not fictional. Great to see you again. Thanks for being here. Mr. S. Sandhu: And I, as well. It's always a pleasure to see you in person, and I look forward to when this is passed us and we too. You're absolutely correct.

For the duration of the project, after a union or a non- union contractor is selected, they must work under the –under common terms. Imagine, Mr. Minister, if you had a 30-per-cent– and I've worked in these environments. I worked for

72 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA April 8, 2021 the City of Winnipeg; I've managed labour rela tions and collective agreements as a manager at the City of Winnipeg. It is a painful exercise to manage multiple collective agreements in the same depart ment. Imagine doing so in a project that has 3,000 workers at peak and 32 different HR systems in place.

What the PLA–what the burnt–BNA has done is imposed a singular set of human resource policies, procedures and systems in place, and if those who call that forced unionize cannot see the value, they need to have walked in my shoes as a manager, managing union collective agreements or non- union collective agreements where multiple systems exist. It is deva - stating. So, in that context, and it should be very clear that any contractor that comes under the BNA and works at a Hydro project, the minute they leave, they are non-union.

That does not carry forwar d with them, and as unions we are prohibited from organizing any contractor who happens to be non- union, but is wonder–working under a collective agreement. At Keeyask, for example, we are bound not to try to organize them. So, in fact, it gives you an immunity card if you're a non-union contractor, to come work at Keeyask because as a–under a collective agreement. So these are nuanced issues, Mr. Minister, and there's–there are multiple facets to this.

It is, you know–I just don't like simple buzz phrases like forced unionization because they detract from nuanced, thoughtful discussion and they don't contribute anything to it. I regret to say this, but that's just my view. Mr. Wiebe: Well, thank you very much, Mr. Sandhu, for joining us here. Again, I'm not sure if this bill in a previous iteration ended up coming to committee, but I've certainly heard your passionate words before, both in a personal level, but in the media and elsewhere, and I think you've done a really good job of sort of boiling it down.

And, you know, the minister might say that, you know, you're emotional or it's an emotional issue, but I think what you're doing is you're trying to put a human face to the membership that you represent and let us know, as a committee, just how this is going to affect so many hard-working Manitobans. So I think you've done a really good job in laying all of that out, and I appreciate your time.

I think you've also done a good job in sort of laying out exactly how this protects both unionized and non-unionized workers, and I agree with your point 100 per cent that that sort of buzzword, you know, snippet, kind of, of language doesn't really help anybody, and I think what you're trying to do here is do best for both Manitoba taxpayers and for the workers who are going to perform these jobs. I don't have a question, but I just wanted to thank you and just say that, you know, that we've stood shoulder to shoulder with you and with others who have called this bill out and we stood up against this bill.

As a majority government they, you know, the government can continue to plow through and push ahead, but I just wanted to say thank you for the work that you've done on the ground. We're going to continue to stand with you here in the Legislature every step of the way. Mr. Chairperson: The time for questions for this presenter is over. I will now call upon Tanya Palson, private citizen, and ask the moderator to invite them into the meeting. Please unmute yourself and turn your video on. Ms. Tanya Palson, please proceed with your presentation. Ms.

Tanya Palson (Private Citizen): Thank you for having me, Chairperson and Vice-Chair and standing committee members. My name is Tanya Palson, and I'm here speaking as a concerned private citizen, as well as contributing to the statements made on behalf of Manitoba Building Trades, of which I am part of, as well as our 13 member unions. Again, I want to just reiterate a bit of who we are and Sudhir had just spoke previously so some of this will have been covered.

But together with our affiliate unions we represent roughly 10,000 skilled trades professionals and as a private sector entity, we work as a human resource and project partner with many of the large unionized general contractors in Manitoba. And we are t he only construction association that represents the needs and interests of on- the-tool, on- the-ground workers. Our tradespeople work in industrial, commercial, institutional sector of the construction industry so they build big.

They're the ones who bui ld schools, hospitals, entertainment complexes, power generating stations and more of the critical infrastructure our province relies on. As a provincial council, we have our eye on workforce development of both current and prospective skilled trades workers in Manitoba.

April 8, 2021 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 73 Nationally, we're facing a skilled trades worker shortage, due largely to increasing rate of retirement and decreasing apprenticeship entry and completion. The same holds true for Manitoba. These two factors–entry into the workforce and apprenticeship completion–are the best message–best methods of ensuring that we have a local, skilled workforce, who's able to continue to build the critical infrastructure of our province.

With an equity lens but also the reality of changing demographics , it's necessary that women, Indigenous people and other marginalized groups be attracted to and supported in their trades careers.

Bill 13 would destabilize a method of achieving these important outcomes, project labour agreements, making them, in their traditional form, illegal but also creating a barrier for similar forms of labour manage- ment, as well as opportunity generation and recruit - ment of under -represented groups, in the form of community benefits agreements, which are procure - ment tools that are rapidly gaining popularity in many jurisdictions across Canada, both federally, provincially and municipally, for their social out - comes and their long- term, downstream cost savings for government services, like health and justice.

But it's some impo rtant things about project labour agreements in construction specifically and a lot of these have been touched on already and I'm sure will be touched on and reiterated with speakers following myself. But I want to talk about the training and apprenticeship opportunities, the recruitment of local workers, particularly northern and Indigenous, and the safety protocol that affiliates –that your affiliation assurance that all members follow. So,

(1) PLAs are critical to help workers develop their skills on the job site. This is critical for training apprentices who can often then gain the experience they need for each level within the duration of one or two big projects. And, as Sudhir had mentioned, we have seen many Indigenous workers enter through work read iness programs, in advance of Keeyask, knowing that there was a mandate to hire Indigenous workers. And those workers have been able to complete or be close to completing their levels on a project in achieving journeyperson or Red Seal status.

Without a PLA, this would not have happened, in the North especially, where there is much less oppor- tunity to start an apprenticeship program, much less get in hours to become a journeyperson or Red Seal in a trade. So, losing this ability would be a detrimental loss to a very relatively simple –maybe not simple but something that's used in other jurisdictions to see this value and it's something that will get lost when we're spending public dollars on a project.

We're not going to be able to see as much benefits o r those intangible benefits that could be produced through a PLA or a community benefits agreement. Secondly, PLAs ensure that Manitoba's – Manitoba workers get work first, for the most part, and this has not always been the case. Manitobans will and continue to lose out on jobs that were –are built right in their backyard. And this is especially important for Manitobans in minority groups that depend on labour agreements to break the cycle of unemployment.

And we still see this happening on current projects, like the Women's Hospital and, then, municipally in Winnipeg South End water treatment plant, where it was then primarily from workers outside of Manitoba. So it's just a matter of where do we want to put our hard-earned tax dollars. I know, myself, I would rather see it paying in pockets of somebody who lives down the street from me than somebody who lives in Minnesota or Alberta. And, lastly, without PLAs, there's no guarantee for local jobs, construction quality or project safety.

PLAs are an effe ctive labour management tool that provides predictability and stability to large projects. They guarantee the same standards of safety and oversight in wages and benefits for everybody work - ing on a construction site, without which workers are left vulnera ble and projects are open to delays, resentment between workers, mistrust and high worker turnover. * (18:50) By building infrastructure through PLAs, quality is added to the equation. When quality is not assured, we all lose. And when using taxpayer dol lars for projects, it is imperative that corners are not cut.

Long-term quality is the most important thing to consider when building Manitoba infrastructure. We want things that are built to last. So, in conclusion, Bill 13 will have irreversibly negative implications for our local jobs, our project quality and project cost and the safety of our construction sites. Manitoba workers and com - munities deserve better, especially in the current crisis that we remain in during this pandemic.

74 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA April 8, 2021 Our members play a n imperative role in Manitoba's infrastructure future. For the good of our workers and for our communities, I would just ask that this–please vote against this bill. And, yes. And I'm open to any questions or any follow-up comments as well. Mr. Chairperson: Thank you for your presentation. Do members of the committee have questions for this presenter? Mr. Schuler: Thank you very much, Ms. Palson, and appreciate you being here and doing it remotely. It's a new way of doing business here. I appreciate your comment.

I do want to make it very clear, however, that our contracts lay out the safety requirements and the expectations and standards, all which apply. So a project labour agreement isn't what sets out the safety requirements. It's the contract. So all of those things apply. So the fact that we're not going to require to be a unionized shop wouldn't change the safety stan - dards. And I just wanted to make that very clear for the record. Also, the 'apprentership' for First Nations or targets thereof, that can all still be part of the contract and often–or, in most cases–usually is. I have a question for you.

So, if a company need not be a union shop to bid on a project but will have to be a union shop if successful–Mr. Sandhu said they can't unionize, there's a bit of a moratorium. How long is that moratorium for? Do you know? Ms. Palson: I personally don't know the answer to that. That's not my wheelhouse. I'm not the labour relations expert at the building trades. But if I could comment on safet y and –some clarification, I think that it's less about, obviously, the standards of safety, and that's going to be standardized when you go into a project either by the contractor, the project owner or the GC.

But imagining a scenario in terms of managing safety and managing workers on a job site that go outside of the actual on-the-tools safety–but–you have a bunch of guys who are technically doing the same trade, but they're all employed by different con - tractors, all making variable wages and all having to have different points of contact for how to go about their day -to-day life at a work camp that has 3,000 people at it,

whereas–where I have been able to observe from a relatively outside perspective, is when there are issues. For example, at Keeyask you have a central collective agreement that outlines either revisions or updates and you have all of the workers being managed in one current stream and one process and one source of information. And they all have the same expectations. They all have the same standards.

And that's just as important for when they're not currently on the job site, when they're back at camp, when they're using camp facilities, as it is for when they're on the tools or when they're in their crews out actually building. And also, additionally, on the apprenticeship question, it is concerning, as there are other actions being held in some other bills, including Bill 55, which basically revokes the requirement for the Province of Manitoba to employ apprentices on public projects.

So if there were that –if that were to be removed from Bill 55 and if there were some more legislation to support apprentices outside of our project labour agreement, then yes, I think that that comment would stand and there would be enough consideration given to Indigenous workers. But we have seen other actions by the government, specifically in Bill 55, that would sort of negate any oversight of the apprenticeship process,

whereas a PLA on the specific project would be able to manage that as a requirement on contractors who are coming on for the project. Mr. Gerrard: Yes, my–I've seen work environments in Manitoba where employers have decided to hire a lot of part-time people, as opposed to full-time people, probably partly to decrease the cost of bene fits. But their quality of work has suffered dramatically, and I wondered if you would comment on how project labour agreements deal with this issue. [interjection] Mr. Chairperson: Ms. Palson, go ahead, please. Ms.

Palson: So, on that, when–and again, I 'm not going to pretend that I'm an exact expert. I don't have the BNA in front of me right now. But I do know that, within our unionized collective agreements –and that also applies then to an agreement like the Burntwood/Nelson Agreement –there is a mandated requirement to advance apprentices. There is mandated court requirements to hire Indigenous people as apprentices and, as such, advance them. A very common trend we see in our industry anecdotally is that, when you advance levels, it is

April 8, 2021 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 75 legislated that there is a certain wage requirement to advance those apprentices. So it becomes a barrier for apprentices when an employer is looking at their average crew rate and not wanting to pay a fourth- level apprentice when they can come in and get a second -level apprentice for a lower wage rate to do that same amount, in which case, they would let the fourth-level apprentice go and that apprentice is then struggling to find another job with enough hours for them to reach journeyperson status. And that happens often at different levels. Mr.

Chairperson: Thank you, Ms. Palson, your time for questions are over. Point of Order Mr. Chairperson: Mr. Wiebe, on a point of order. Mr. Wiebe: Yes, I appreciate that we have a number of members here that want to ask questions. I think it's appropriate that actual members of this committee–myself, my colleague on our side and from their side –would be, you know, first to ask questions. I understand there might have been some confusion about that , but what I would like to do is maybe just ask for leave that I could ask my question and at least thank the presenter for coming this evening. Mr.

Chairperson: There is no point of order, but I ask leave for the committee if Mr. Wiebe could–allow him to ask a question. Honourable minister? Mr. Schuler: Agreed. Mr. Chairperson: Leave has been granted. * * * Mr. Wiebe: Okay, thank you. Thanks to the committee. I just wanted to simply thank you, Ms. Palson. I did have some questions about –you talked about training and about a skill shortage in Manitoba. I think these are really important points and I do–I did hope that we had a little bit more time to delve into those.

Maybe if you could– I know the time of the committee is short, but if we could just–anything that you can lend, i n terms of how these project labour agreements benefit the training and address that skill shortage that you identified in your presentation. Ms. Palson: Yes, very briefly, similarly to my response to Mr.

Gerrard, is that it–rather than it being, for lack of a better word, a free -for-all and for the independent either contractors or the workers them - selves to sort of negotiate that whole process, a project labour agreement puts training as a high priority, as seen as a benefit that's going to come out of a labour agreement for a massive project that would actually give people enough hours to advance in their training and give them enough opportunity to try the different variety of skills that they need to be completing at those levels, in order to advance.

And without an oversight of the –without a commitment to that at a large scale and as an outcome of the project at the very beginning, it's difficult, if not impossible, to manage that and have the same successful outcomes in terms of advancement and training. Mr. Chairperson: Thank you, Ms. Palson. The time for questions for this presenter is over. I will now call upon Mr. Chris Lorenc, president of the Manitoba Heavy Construction Association. Mr. Lorenc, I'll ask moderator if they could invite them to the meeting, and please unmute yourself and turn your video on. Mr.

Lorenc, please proceed with your presentation. Mr. Chris Lorenc (Manitoba Heavy Construction Association): Good evening, Mr. Chairman and members. * (19:00) My name is Chris Lor enc, I'm president of the Manitoba Heavy Construction Association. The MHCA, which represents the heavy civil sector and its supply side in Manitoba, is pleased to present in support of Bill 13. Bill 13 preserves choice and ensures that all employees and their employers have the opportunity to bid work and work on public projects in Manitoba without being required to join or pay dues to a building trades union.

Most employees in Manitoba's construction industry do not belong to a building trades union, and they do so by the exercise of their choice. These are skilled tradespeople working for employers who meet or exceed legislated safety standards, pay good wages and benefits and strive for workplace and project excellence. In Manitoba, the open shop construction sector includes small, medium and large businesses engaged

76 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA April 8, 2021 in heavy civil and in the industrial, commercial and residential construction projects. They and their workforce in the majority who have chosen to work without union representation build our bridges, fix our roads, and develop and build residential and com - mercial properties effectively –all aspects of con - struction. Bill 13 ensures that these employers and, more importantly, their employees, can work on public projects without being required to join a union or pay dues to a union they choose not to belong to.

Bill 13 ensures that they –that the employers and employees have an opportunity to work on public projects without having a labour model imposed upon their workplaces by the ideology of any government. Bill 13 is about enabling free choice, and I submit that is an important legacy. Respectfully, this fight with opponents may argue this is a good thing and an important legacy. It is obvious that when more of industry is allowed to participate, competition intensifies, bidding is more intense and, concurrently, investment in innovation and productivity increase.

This is accomplished while wages and benefits to workers are at or above compensation offered by those covered in collective bargaining agreements. Bill 13 does not eliminate project labour agreements but, rather, allows the successful bidder to determine the labour management model it will employ to do the job. The MHCA has consistently supported open, unfettered competitive bidding of all publicly funded infrastructure projects. The choice to organize or not is for the worker, not for government to make.

We support the following core principles: construction project contracts should be awarded to the lowest qualifying bidde r; policies and legislation of the government should promote open tendering; the government should not be prescribing through policy legislation or regulation whether or not a company or its workforce must be open shop or unionized to work on a project.

Respectfully, the Manitoba government is doing the right thing with Bill 13, and we would suggest that most Manitobans agree that government should abandon any policy of required unionization or forcing workers to pay union dues to be allowed to work in favour of one that protects choice. Bill 13 does this and is an important step in the right direction. I have worked with Sudhir Sandhu, with Kevin Rebeck, and with Paul Moist. I've seen their presenta- tions. I have great respect for them; I have great–but I also respectfully disagree and

part company with their views on Bill 13. Reference to bill–reference to 1959, frankly, is of little probative value; 1959 is 62 years ago –different or no labour legislation. We didn't have in place safety standards or safety programs; we had no Construction Industry Wages Act. And, yes, Premier Roblin did have the courage to institute a project labour agreement–because he had no legislative or regulatory framework within which to work. To suggest that that continues to be the case today and is resolved by PLAs is, frankly, inaccurate.

And as for the floodway, we were there when the government of the day, a Premier Doer, began by attempting to force unionization on as a condition of being able to bid the floodway wor k. And our association and others took up that challenge and the public, frankly, supported us in saying, you should not and will not force companies to become unionized just to bid the floodway project.

As far as education and training is concerned, the Manitoba Heavy Construction Association, Merit, Winnipeg Construction and others had each industry funded and delivered for decades, since 1990, robust education and training, whether for safety, as we've started in 1991–and all you need to do is ask the WCB and inquire about the significant reduction in frequency, duration and severity of accidents. Our safety programs became the model for Safe Work to be built. We have a technical vocational institute, accred - ited by the Department of Education, which w e instituted some 20 years ago.

We are the founding–we are a founding member of the Manitoba Construction Sector Council, of which Manitoba Home Builders' and Winnipeg Construction, as well, are founding members. So to suggest that industry does not inve st in education and training is simply false. What the government is doing is correct. It builds choice. That is an important legacy. We are in a democracy. We support the bill. Thank you. Mr. Chairperson: Thank you for your presentation. Do members of the committee have questions for the presenter?

April 8, 2021 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 77 Mr. Schuler: I thank you very much, Mr. Lorenc and great to see you this evening. Like with the other presenters, it would have been really neat to have had you here and be able to speak to you directly, but we've got you on screen, so I guess that's second best. Great to have you here. There seemed to be some misconceptions about Bill 13. We've heard that safety requirements would no longer apply and we've pointed out that those are not PLA things. Those a re actually contracts –this is built in the contract.

We've heard about standards, that those would slip and those are also covered by contract. We also heard that workers' wages would go down, that there would be a cannibalizing of workers' wages. Unfortunately, the –it wasn't mentioned that there's prevailing legislation that sets out workers' wages. I do want to ask you if you could kind of reference those. And I appreciate the fact that you mentioned that worker training does take place by industry. It i s done in partnership with WCB and others.

So, we appreciate that on the labour side they have a very robust training process, as we do on the industry side, so that we would always ensure that we have trained workers. That's also part of the contract, that you must have a trained workforce and we do have inspectors that go and make sure that they are doing the job appropriately. So, if you could kind of just weigh in on those very briefly, and I know the opposition wants to ask you a question, as well. Thank you for being here. Great to see you. Mr. Lorenc: Thank you, minister. I want to focus on safety.

Since 1990, our association and the Winnipeg Construction Association have self -funded a very robust education and training program for workplace safety. And we introduced to the Manitoba market what is referred as COR certification Certificate of Recognition. That is recognized by government. It was industry that approached the provincial govern- ment and asked, and the government agreed that certification under COR be a condition of contract. So any publicly tendered project requires a contractor to demonstrate that it is COR certified.

That program, self-funded by industry, is the model upon which Safe Work Manitoba was built. To suggest that employers do not care, do not invest in safety or do not invest in the education and training of their workforce, is patently inaccurate. And the WCB can testify to the fact that third -party audits of the COR program, of the industry-based safety programs, have consistently demonstrated a reduction in frequency, duration and severity of claims. Those are the results of decades and millions and millions of dollars of investment focused on the safety of our workforce. Mr.

Wiebe: Well, thank you very much, Mr. Lorenc, for coming out. It's great to see you here in committee and great to have your participation and your voice. You know, one of the things that strikes me about some of the things that you put on the record today is your commitment, as you said, to sa fety, to making sure that workers have access to training. I think–sounds like we're all kind of on the same page with regards to that kind of stuff. So, I appreciate that you, as an industry group, have promoted that and continued to push for that.

I think that's an important part of this conversation. * (19:10) The question I had for you is with regards to, you know, labour peace, to guarantee against strikes and against lockouts. How do you feel about that component of PLAs giving that certainty, especially when we're talking about big projects that government is undertaking, giving that certainty to have the project done, done well and done on time and on budget? Mr. Lorenc: I appreciate the question.

One of the unique things about the Manitoba mar ket is that we have a labour –LMRC–labour relations management committee, which has representation from organized labour, representation from employers, and it's chaired by Michael Werier. And many of the issues which would typically result in strike ac tion or labour relations hostility is handled through the LMRC. Jurisdictions to the east and west of this province marvel at the fact and lament the fact that they don't have comparable institutions, comparable bodies through which we can vet the development of labour relations legislation.

The legacy of the LMRC is the fact that we have developed legislation that has the buy -in from both employer and employee communities, which results in labour peace. It has less to do with PLAs and far more to do with the fact that as Manitobans, we work

78 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA April 8, 2021 together to common objectives. One of them is labour peace. Mr. Chairperson: Thank you for your presentation. We will now move on to the next presenter. I will now call on Mr. Jeff Skinner of IBEW 2085 and ask the moderator to invite them into the meeting. Please unmute yourself and turn your video on. I've been informed Mr. Jeff Skinner is not here right now, so we'll move him to the bottom of the list. I will now call on Mr. Kyle Kalcsics of Local 254 Plumbers & Pipe Fitters, and ask the moderator to invite them into the meeting.

Please unmute yourself and turn your video on. Mr. Kalcsics, please proceed with your presentation. Mr. Kyle Kalcsics (Plumbers & Pipe Fitters, Local 254): Good evening. And I really appreciate your pronunciation of my last name. I've heard it called many things. So I am Mr. Kyle Kalcsics. I'm business manager of Local 254, and I oppose this bill and I'm here to give you my perspective, as well as my –perspective of my members. My lo cal has approximately 1,300 members, including plumbers, steamfitters, refrigeration mem - bers, sprinkler fitters, welders.

And as I said, I want to present my view–a few issues that pertain to this bill. The committee members are tasked with making a deci sion that will have a profound impact on the future of Manitoba. Projects our members have worked on are such as that –talked about earlier –the floodway, Wuskwatim, Keeyask. Projects of this nature provide opportunity for training and apprenticeships, safe job sites that follow safety protocols that our contractors ensure and our members follow.

Recruitment of workers local to the area, particularly northern and Indigenous, this is especially important for Manitobans and minority groups that depend on PLAs to break the cycle of unemployment. Curb projects, such as Keeyask, have given many local Indigenous people the opportunity to start apprenticeships, which broadens our Manitoban workforce. At the end of the day, we should all want these opportunities for Manitobans, having wages earned to support our local economy. Local workers, while on these projects, will be furthering the skills in their trades for our local workforce for future projects.

Without PLAs, many local jobs for Manitobans would not exist. The PLAs help ensure Manitobans won't lose out on jobs that are right in their backyards. As spoken about earlier, PLAs have been around for 55 years and were created by the PC government. PLAs have, time and again, ensured the best quality infrastructure projects for Manitobans while saving taxpayer dollars. Manitoba projects should benefit Manitobans. PLAs ensure that the investments made in Manitoba benefit Manitobans first and foremost. The best way to protect the Manitoba workers on the projects is to stop Bill 13.

Bill 13 will ban PLAs altogether, taking away opportunities for future generations. Without PLAs, there'll be no guarantee for local jobs, and the construction project quality and safety, as spoken about earlier, is a concern. PLAs guarantee the same standards of safety and oversight for everybody working on a construction site. Without workers –without it, workers are left vulnerable to accidents and serious injuries, and projects are left open to delays, resentment, mistrust and high worker turnover.

By building infrastructure through PLAs, quality is added to the equation when imperative–it's imperative that when you're using taxpayer dollars for projects no corners are cut. Long- term quality is the most important thing to conside r when building Manitoba infrastructure, and we want these things–we want building that's going to last. In conclusion, in the case of Bill 13, we know that the government wants to achieve value for money. We applaud this but oppose the method, the way t hey choose to approach it in. This bill will only cost Manitobans in the long run.

We ask that you consider the evidence, and if you're considering this bill to reconsider it and answer to workers who will be directly impacted. Bill 13 will have irrevers ibly negative implications for our local jobs, our project quality and safety of construction sites. Manitoba workers and communities deserve better. Our members play an imperative role to Manitoba's infrastructure for the future. For good quality, for our workers and our communities, please vote against this bill. I thank everybody for your time, and I'm open to questions. Mr. Chairperson: Thank you for your presentation.

April 8, 2021 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 79 Do members of the committee have questions for the presenter? Mr. Schuler: Mr. Kalcsics, I hope I got that right; seeing as the Chair got it right why shouldn't I? First of all, thank you for being here, appreciate that you logged on and gave your presentation. I do want to, however, point out to you that, for instance, safety requi rements, standards, worker training, recruitment targets and wages are all covered off by legislation or by the contract themselves.

Like, how would not having–or allowing non- union shops to bid and not be forced to unionize, how would that change anything in the contract when the safety requirements are still part of the contract, as are standards–workers' wages are covered off by prevailing legislation, so and so forth? I guess there seems to be a misconception or disconnect because Bill 13 does not preve nt any of these things; they're part of the contract. So I don't understand how this ends up being such a –I'm choosing your words carefully, the way you worded it; you worded it better than I did –but it actually doesn't impact that.

The only thing is it al lows union and non-union shops to bid on these contracts and to be allowed to do so without any impediment that non- union shops have to be forced to unionize. So, again struggling with the, for instance, the safety requirements which are part of the contr act anyway, could you help us out there? Mr. Kalcsics: Sure, thank you. First of all, the comment, the PLAs that were we're referring to, mandate a certain number of apprentices, so more apprentices than normal that are asked for, as well as Indigenous persons to be hired; there's numbers that were indicated for the project.

As far as safety, I guess it's open to perspective. However, we know the policies that are in place by unionized contractors, we know the processes that they go through before they st art their day, how they go over their tasks. And so therefore we know that when a worker's going to work, they've went over the skill task and they're ready for work safely. Mr. Wiebe: Okay, well, thanks very much, Mr. Kalcsics, for your participation her e tonight. I really appreciate your on -the-ground knowledge of how these PLAs impact workers in Manitoba.

I think that's what we're really looking to get from these committee hearings. I think the minister, you know, thinks that he knows–has all the answers, but when we hear from people on the ground I think that really impacts our perception and helps us understand. I really appreciate you talking more about, you know, those so- called recruitment targets and how giving labour a seat at the table right fr om the get-go can be really beneficial.

So, you know, I don't think I have a question so much as just a comment to say thank you very much for your time here tonight, and I do appreciate your perspective because I think that's what all of us as committee members could really benefit from. Mr. Chairperson: Are there any other questions? An Honourable Member: Yes. Mr. Chairperson: Mr. Gerrard. * (19:20) Mr. Gerrard: Yes, my question, again, has to do with the safety issue.

I've seen circumstances and dealt with families who've lost loved ones through accidents, and it seems to me that the problem was not just what was legislated but what the practice was at the site. And I wonder if you would comment. Mr. Kalcsics: Yes, and that's more what I was referring to when I responded earlier, the process that's in place. So, legislation is one thing, but what is actually practised. So, at the end of the day, PLA–or, when we talk about job starts, for example, using a job start.

So before you go and do that task, you go over any concerns of the area, you know, if you're not supposed to go into certain areas, as well as, like I say, a step - by-step instruction on how you do your task. And like I say, we know this is what our processes are and that's why we talk about safety. Mr. Gerrard: I just wanted to say thank you. Mr. Chairperson: Any other comments from Mr. Kalcsics? Mr. Kalcsics: Thank you. I'm good. Mr. Chairperson: Thank you for your presentation. I will now call on Mr. Marc Lafond, Operating Engineers, Local 987. And I'd ask the moderator to invite them into the meeting.

Please unmute yourself and turn your video on. Mr. Lafond, please proceed with your presentation.

80 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA April 8, 2021 Mr. Marc Lafond (Operating Engineers , Local 987): Thank you. Good evening and thank you for providing me with an opportunity to speak to committee on this bill. My name is Marc Lafond, business manager of the Operating Engineers , Local 987. We are a trade union with approximately 1,400 members in the pro - vince of Manitoba. Members in our local union are represented by crane operators, mechanics, pipe - liners, heavy equipment operators and stationary engineers.

Proponents of project labour agreements, such as ourselves, argue that agreements have several advantages; advantages such as PLAs provide uniform wages, benefits, overtime pay, hours, working conditions and working rules. PLAs provide contractors with reliable and uninterrupted supply of qualified workers at a predictable cost. And Mr. Sandhu referred to one project in the province currently underway, and the lowest bidder actually has –or had Kijiji ads looking for employees at that same site.

PLAs ensure no labour strife –to provide – prohibiting strikes and lockouts and include binding procedures to resolve labour disputes. PLAs al low a larger percentage of construction wages to stay in local community. For the overall economy of Manitoba, PLAs have a net positive effect on local communities and provide a stable middle -class income. Workers tend to be locally recruited, often as a condition of the PLA. Additional benefits are such as apprenticeship training programs mandated by PLAs. They are often a complement to the local community.

These skills are portable and can be used at other projects and construction sites throughout the country and through- out this province. We know that PLAs provide a positive impact on creating great pathways for women, Indigenous people, minorities, veterans and other under - represented populations of Manitoba. However, developing quality workers in the construction trades historically has been hard to identify. PLAs have been in place around the country since the 1930s.

Many large projects include the Hoover Dam in Nevada, Cape Canaveral in Florida, the Trans- Alaska Pipeline, Confederation Bridge, H orizon Oil Sands in Alberta, just to name a couple. Opponents, on the other hand, argue that PLAs are unfair, anti -competitive and unnecessary. They will say that they are unfair because they typically favour unionized labour, even though that PLAs allow for non-union labour participation and there is many cases in the province. Passing this law–that this allows a PLA on publicly funded projects is unnecessary and solely based on ideology.

There is currently no law that I am aware of that absolutely requir es a PLA to be put into place in the province. Therefore I ask myself, why is it necessary to create one to disallow it? Don't we owe it to Manitobans to use PLAs on a case-by-case basis if the project warrants it? Why throw the baby you have out with the bathwater? Thank you. Mr. Chairperson: Thank you for presentation. Do members of the committee have questions for the presenter? Mr. Schuler: Well, thank you very much, Mr. Lafond, and great to see you again.

It's been a while since we've had a chance t o sit down and have a conversation, and great to see you here this evening. I'd like to point out that Bill 13 does not prevent PLAs. It doesn't mean that a contractor can't win the contract and put in a PLA. However, it does not mean that you have to be a unionized company to win and have to pay union dues and be unionized. So anyway, we are going to disagree on those points and that's fine. Great to see you out anyway. Have a great evening. I'm sure you're going to have something to add to this. Mr. Lafond: I don't have anything to add. Mr.

Wiebe: Thank you very much, and we will have more to say about that, I'm sure, as the evening goes on. But thank you very much for coming, Mr. Lafond, for joining us here virtually in this committee. Again, I think your experience and the pers - pective that you bring from your members is helpful for us.

Specifically I wanted to ask you just about allowing for workers, you know, this idea of –and we've heard it a few times from a few different presenters, local hires versus non-local hires, and the importance of the PLA in ensuring that we have–that Manitoba workers being at the head of the line when it comes to working on these important projects.

April 8, 2021 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 81 Can you just talk a little bit more about how the PLAs can impact that and help protect those local hires? Mr. Lafond: Yes, thank you for the question. In most instances the PLA will have provisions, and therefore sort of like a pecking order as to who is first to be hired and who is first to be laid off. And normally it's local community members first, then it's local Manitobans, and then it's unionized employees, then it's Canadians at large as sort of the last resort.

So certainly PLAs, from my vantage point at least, does help community members directly because the projects are being done in their local area so they should have actually the repatriation of all those dollars coming back to those communities so people are buying vehicles, bread, milk, so on and so forth. Mr. Wiebe: Did you recognize me? Oh, okay. Well I don't have another question, but I will just take this opportunity to thank you once again for participating.

I do–I think we've heard, you know, consistent message here this evening an–the importance of safety, of training, of employing Manitobans and maki ng sure that these projects are getting done in a predictable way. I think you've hit all those points. So thanks so much for joining us and giving us those facts. Mr. Chairperson: We can still open the floor for any more questions. An Honourable Member: Yes, I have– Mr. Chairperson: Okay, Mr. Gerrard, go ahead. Mr. Gerrard: Yes, there's been a lot of emphasis put on low bidding and low bids and how this gives you cheaper work.

But we've seen many examples recently where companies which got the low bid actually ended up with going way, way over: the Winnipeg international airport, the Bombers stadium, the visitation shelters for personal-care homes. So, I mean, even though a company may get a, you know, put forward a low bid it doesn't necessarily mean you end up with a low price. Is that right? Why is this? Mr. Lafond: Yes, that's a very good question.

And often in the construction–and I don't profess to be a general contractor or know a–the ins and outs of their industry, but certainly from my perspec tive sometimes you attract the winning bid by a low bid and then you have change orders and you do certain things in order to make more money at the end of the day.

And I don't know necessarily if that was the case in some of those projects, but certainly, the lowest bidder isn't necessarily the best scenario for, I think, major projects in the province. * (19:30) And with regard to WC –with safety too, I just– well, I would be remiss if I didn't point out a WCB study that was commissioned by Ontario a few years ago, and they pointed out that unionized–large unionized workplaces are 31 per cent safer. Mr. Chairperson: Thank you for your presentation. The time for questions is over for this presenter.

I will now call on Aarti Sharma, private citizen, and ask the moderator to invite them into the meeting. Please unmute yourself and turn your video on. Ms. Sharma, please proceed with your presentation. Ms. Aarti Sharma (Private Citizen): Hi. I write this presentation requesting the Legislative Assembly to emphasize the importance of project labour agree- ments and why we need them. I, Aarti Sharma, a woman of colour and a proud Manitoban, oppose the proposed Bill 13. I personally have been involved under a recent project labour agreement.

I can assure you that by banning this decades -long tradition of using project labour agreements, the government is taking away not only good jobs from Manitobans but also taking away the key aspect of training and safety that is crucial in the building of these large public infrastructure projects. I humbly request that the government please keep the best interests of Manitobans in mind: withdraw Bill 13. Under a PLA, common wages and working conditions are established for large groups of con- tractors and a diverse, transient workforce.

By requiring all contractors to pay fair wages under one collective agreement, contractors are selected for productivity and quality, not just price. As quality–sorry. As demonstrated, PLAs consis- tently deliver high -quality roads, hospitals and other infrastructure. Work environments on these projects are complex and dozens of employers and hundreds to thousands of workers may come in and out over a long period of time, like–such as the Manitoba Hydro dam. But in these complex environments, t he PLA provides a sense of stability through labour standards, wages and HR practices. PLAs also guarantee no

82 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA April 8, 2021 strikes or lockouts. To be quite clear, there is a contract between the workers, contractors and project owners that can reduce the unknown risk. All parties are kept accountable under the PLA. PLAs provide skilled workers who are trained and–not only in their respective trade, but they are trained as well as well -versed in safety practices. Safety standards mandated by PLAs are transparent and accountable, with common understandings over what safety means being shared across a project.

As shown in reports written by BuildForce Canada and Canadian Apprenticeship Forum, to name a few, there is going to be a shortage in skilled worker labour. These PLAs can ensure that there is this–there is a proper training and skill development that will increase the number of skilled workers. We need to promote these practices, but for our contractors to be kept accountable, we need these PLAs. PLAs also allow training opportunities for under- represented groups, such as youth, Indigenous, women, newcomer Canadians, veterans, et cetera.

Such training and apprenticeship initiatives through these PLAs are key to supporting meaningful work for underrepresented popul ations and to help young people build their futures right here at home. That's why governments of all political stripes have relied on PLAs. I have heard of things such as forced unionization; it is not hidden that the current pro- vincial government sees PLAs as forced unionization, however, this is incorrect. The bidding process is open to any company under the PLA. They are kept accountable in ensuring fair wages are paid and proper training and safety procedures are adhered to.

I don't see what is wrong in that. I respect that the current government is looking to reduce costs and save money, but at the expense of taking away work from Manitobans. Taking taxpayer dollars to pay for out -of-province or out -of-country workers. What guarantee is there that these con - tractors will provide a well-trained workforce? If these workers get injured in Manitoba, who is liable? What initiatives will be –will the Province impose on these contractors? How will these con- tractors be held accountable? What guarantee is there of quality work?

Does the government want our taxpayer dollars to stimulate other economies outside of Manitoba? There are so many unanswered questions. In short, project labour agreements have benefitted the working families, our economy, but also all Manitobans who benefit from these important infrastructures that our Manitobans have built. There's a sense of pride in that –built by Manitobans for Manitobans. Again, let's withdraw Bill 13. Thank you. Mr. Chairperson: Thank you for presentation. Do members of the committee have questions for the presenter? Mr. Schuler: Well, thank you very much, Ms.

Sharma, and I have been in these committee rooms for over 20 -some years, about 22, and I have never seen a presentation being given from inside of a car. So this is a first for committee, and thank you for having broken another barrier. We appreciate it and it shows you how we can use technology to our advantage. Ms. Sharma, there seems to be a lot of mis - conceptions. Safety requirements, standards, workers wages are all covered off by either the contract or by legislation. Worker training is also in the contract recruitment; targets are also part of the contract. So, Ms.

Sharma, my question to you is, if safety requirements, standards, workers wages, worker train- ing, recruitment targets, all the rest of that is part of the contract, the only thing that PLAs give is that you must have a forced unionization on a shop. We believe this is about freedom, that if you don't want to be part of a union, you have a business where the workers don't want to be part of a union, they should be allowed to bid and get the contract to build something and not be forced to unionize. All the other elements remain. I don't understand where the rub is. Ms.

Sharma: Sorry, I'm not clear on your question. Are you saying that this is forced unionization, is that what you're asking me? I'm not clear. Mr. Schuler: Well, if you are the successful bidder on a PLA, you must unionize, yes. And we read that to committee; it's part of the PLA agreement; we–it's in black and white, and I know there is a mis - conception and misunderstanding, or maybe it's just twisted to be something else. But yes, it's a forced unionization under PLA. All's what we're saying with this legislation is that you can be a union shop, you can be a non-union shop.

It shouldn't be the premise by which you get the tender and you shouldn't be forced to unionize. All the other

April 8, 2021 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 83 elements remain in regards to safety standards, wages, and so and so forth. I don't know if you are aware of it, but we want to make sure that we are all real here at committee, and thank you for joining us from your vehicle. Great to see you. Ms. Sharma: Thank you. So just in regards to the previous presenter, Marc Lafond had touched on a study in regards to safety. And you know what, I should have sent this out but I didn't.

So the Ontario Construction Secretariat did a study where it was proven and shown that unionized work sites are 31 per cent safer than non-unionized. So what I want to, you know, really want to emphasize and drive that point home in regards to safety and training. And so, in regards to the forced unionization, I mean, again, a non–sorry, a non-unionized contractor or–unionized contractor or non-unionized contractor, either/or can bid. But again, you do get more quality workers from a unionized–from a union, in my personal opinion. That's, again, my personal opinion. But yes, thank you. Mr.

Wiebe: Well, thank you very much, Ms. Sharma, and I think your opinion, you know , is right. And I think, as you said, there's certainly a lot of studies that shows that unionized shops have a lot of benefit, and that's the reason why a lot of unionized labour is used to perform these kind of big operations. You know, I think there's –it's very easy to be confused because the minister continues to try to make it confusing, but I mean, his predecessor said very clearly, quote: There's no forced unionization on a project labour agreement. On a project labour agreement there's no compulsion to join the union.

And of course we know that. That's what we've heard over and over again tonight that, you know, there is choice still with the project labour agreement; it just ensures that everybody's on the same level playing field. And I take your point about safety and training because I think that's an important part of this conversation, that we do need to look to our union friends who are trying to promote workplace safety, trying to promote the workers' health, and I think that's a big part of this conversation.

And, you know, again, I mean, if we're all on the same page, why do we have this legislation that seems to just go directly after unions? It does nothing to actually improve either these projects or the safety and health of workers. Ms. Sharma: Absolutely. I totally agree with you. Thank you. * (19:40) Mr. Schuler: Okay. Ms. Sharma, the contract reads– the project labour agreement reads–and I'll read from you the–it's 12.2.1. I'll read you 12.2.2 as well. So, I'll read 12.2.2.

The c ontractor shall, at the time of hire, advise all employees who are not members of the appropriate union that they are required to secure such membership within 30 calendar days of being hired. It is right in the project labour agreement. If you are a non -union shop, you must unionize. Your members must become part of the union membership. And– Mr. Chairperson: The time–excuse–sorry Minister. The–thank you for your presentation. The time for questions is over for the presenter. I will now call on Mr. Ed Miller, private citizen, and ask the moderator to invite them into the meeting.

Please unmute yourself and turn your video on. Mr. Ed Miller, I'm aware, is no –not here, so we will drop him to the bottom of the list. So I'll proceed with Kyley Parker, private citizen, and ask the moderator to invite them into the meeting. Please unmute yourself and turn your video on. Mr. Kyley Parker (Private Citizen): Hello. Mr. Chairperson: Mr. Parker, please proceed with your presentation. Mr. Parker: Hello, thank you for having me. My name is Kyley Parker. I'd like to give you a little bit of information on who I am: I was born and raised in Portage la Prairie, Manitoba.

I would join the Canadian Armed Forces when I was 18 years old. I was a Leopard battle tank driver, and I served a seven- and-a-half month tour of duty in Afghanistan. When I left the military, I headed to Fort McMurray and I started my career in construction. I became a surface blaster. So I use explosives to move rock and earth out of the way in pits and quarries and on construction projects. I'm a member of LiUNA , Local 1258, currently.

84 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA April 8, 2021 Keeyask was the first project that I worked on that fell under a project labour agreement. I was very thankful that it was, and I'm here to tell you why. Project labour agreements form a solid foundation to build your project on. There are requirements that ensure the contractor hires locally first.

That means that Manitobans get first opportunity to work on our projects in our province, and the contractor can't bring in a bunch of cheap out -of- province labour, which is a reality on these large projects; you get one superintendent from out -of- province and the next thing you know his entire crew is from the same province. We've seen this before and it happens on all of these large-scale projects. So the PLAs make sure that Manitobans are put to work first when we are building our infrastructure, and I think most Manitobans would agree that this is a good thing.

Project labour agreements also promote a safer workplace, and I think I'm going to touch on what we're talking about here, because I spent over four years at Keeyask as a craft worker on the ground. Construction workers face challenging working conditions every day, and we're always pressured to get more done. Now, construction site safety has come a long way over the years, and we're not talking about times of old. But you would think–you would be naive to think that construction workers today don't face threats and intimidation on the job site to get more done.

Regardless of what Manitoba Hydro has to say, this happened almost daily on the Manitoba Keeyask project. I witnessed it. But because we are under a project labour agreement at Keeyask, we had someone to go to. We had representation to go–for h elp and advice. And I knew as a worker that I wasn't going to be fired and none of my co -workers were going to be fired for demanding a safe place to work. That was a guarantee at Keeyask because of the representation that we had.

Another important piece of the PLA is the requirement of contractors and construction com - panies must hire skilled, qualified tradespeople to do the work so that we build it right the first time. And of course, you don't get skilled labour if you don't pay a fair wage. Project l abour agreements provide stable and justified wage rates based on trade and skill. Again, I think the majority of Manitobans would agree that tradespeople and construction workers deserve a fair wage for the often dangerous and hard work that they do every day. PLAs ensure Manitobans get a fair wage.

No strikes, no lockouts, pretty self -explanatory. This keeps the project moving forward at all times. Many PLAs have requirements for training new workers and providing opportunities for workers to gain new skills or even a new trade. I personally know people who started off working on the Keeyask project as a general labourer and left as carpenters or iron workers on their way to being journeymen in those trades. We have motivated Manitobans who are proving their–who are improving their career opportunities while they are at work. Again, this is benefitting Manitobans and the communities that they come from.

So PLAs ensure the following on our capital projects: Manitobans have the first opportunity to work on and build our infrastructure, all workers can perform their job safely without threat and intimidation, contractors must hire skilled workers to complete the job and pay them a fair wage, they provide skills and training Manitobans making them more employable and improving their livelihoods and there's no strikes or lockouts. Everything I have mentioned benefits the average Manitoban and the communities that they come from.

Without community benefit agreements or project labour agreements, how do we ensure that the future projects that we build provide the same benefits and opportunities for Manitobans? We can't. Project labour agreements have proved time and time again that when you value your workers and you value the communities that they come from, that we can build much greater things on a construction site than just dams and buildings. And all in all to wrap up, is the average Manitoban going to receive anything from this bill, is it going to make their lives better? I don't think so.

Will trades people or construction workers benefit? No. So that leaves me wondering who does benefit? Well, it seems that the Merit group of contractors must have much to benefit from this bill. They challenged our PLAs in 2012 in this province and they failed. They challenged British Columbia's project labour agreements, or what they refer to now as community benefit agreements, and they failed. So what happens when you keep losing? Well, you must change the rules, of course.

April 8, 2021 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 85 Merit is clearly lobbying this Conservative government to advance their agenda of catering to contractors and company owners first, rather than giving the workers in the communities that they come from. Thank you very much for your time. Mr. Chairperson: Thank you for your presentation. Do members of the committee have questions for the presenter? Mr. Schuler: Well, first of all, thank you very much, Mr. Parker, for being here this evening, and I want to just take a moment to thank you for your service to our country, particularly active serv ice.

Thank you very much for that. We appreciate it. I guess you could say this is what you fought for, is the freedom, for the democracy. This is what it's all about; to be able to come and speak to legislation, and this is the crux of our democracy. And thank you for going and helping to defend our country. I also want to thank you for working on Keeyask. I was the minister at one point in time of Manitoba Hydro and I had a tour up there. It's a magnificent project and thanks for your contributions up there. I just want to say, Mr. Parker, you and I will disagree.

I think you have some misconceptions about Bill 13: safety requirements, standards, workers wages, worker training, recruitment targets, and even skilled trades for the task are all covered of f by contract and can be –for instance, when it comes to worker training, that can be adjusted up and down depending on where the project is and what the outcome is supposed to be, and that is done with all contracts. The project labour agreements don't necessarily mean that that is the case. It's a contract, so it's done by contract.

And we've also heard that the private companies also have what's called the COR C ertification, which is government approved; it's done with WCB. But I guess we can agree to disagree. This doesn't change anything other than we believe that choice and freedom of choice is important. We believe that and certainly I do fundamentally, I think freedom is very important and freedom of choice is. So that you have the choose–if you choose to be part of a non- union shop, you should still be able to bid on a job and you should be able to get the job if you're the best bid, and you should be able to do the work.

And I guess that's where I come from. Thank you very much for presenting. I l ook forward to your comments and, again, thank you for your service to this country. Mr. Parker: Thank you very much, sir. I have no– nothing else further to say. * (19:50) Mr. Wiebe: Well, thank you very much, Mr. Parker, for your service and for the wor k that you do now. It sounds incredibly dangerous. It also sounds incredibly important, and so I want to thank you for being the – one of the people who goes out there, puts your life at risk every single day to do the job that you want to do and that we need you to do.

And we want to make sure that you get home at the end of the day to see your family, and that's, I think, what we're talking about here this evening. I think, you know, I think you have a perfect perspective as being somebody who's actually been on the ground, actually done the work, and so I just –I'm hoping that you can talk a little bit more –you mentioned it a bit, but, you know, I mean it sounds like safety has got to be like the No. 1 issue that's top of mind for you at all times.

The pres sures of a big project like this, of, you know, the government's trying to save a few bucks; they're hiring the cheapest contractor they can; there's a lot of pressure to get the work done. Like, what does that do to somebody who's on the ground doing dangerous work like you are, and what kind of pressures would you feel if you weren't protected by something like a PLA? Mr. Parker: Well, at the beginning of Keeyask, for anyone that's familiar with it, there was a large amount of blasting that had to be done, much more than the previous projects, Wuskwatim and a few others.

We carved out the powerhouse intake and the spillway, and we were on a very tight time frame because the contractor, BBE, underbid big time and they weren't going to be making any money on their drilling and blasting. So, literally, every day we were pressured to do more and more and more work: work around the drills, work in dust, no breaks, everything like that. And that happened every day on a Manitoba Hydro project.

That's the reality of a construction site, and when the superintendent is standing there telling you that the work's got to get done today and you have a valid reason as to why you can't do this because of a safety reason, you're told, well, you know, we're going to find someone that will; we'll find someone that'll do

86 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA April 8, 2021 it. And they will because, you know, guys will. And that's how they threaten you and intimidate you into working unsafely, as they'll just hold your job against you. That's what happens on construction sites. Thank you. An Honourable Member: I have a question. Mr. Chairperson: Mr. Gerrard. Mr. Gerrard: You mentioned the importance of doing it right the first time. Can you give us examples of where that came up and why that's so critical? Mr. Chairperson: Mr. Parker, you may answer the question, just, we're running short of time. So go ahead, Mr. Parker. Mr.

Parker: For myself, I think that's referring to, under the current project labour agreements, we bring workers up. They're–majority of them are coming out of union halls. They're carpenters are coming out of the carpenters' hall. The ironworkers are coming out of the ironworkers' hall. They're qualified workers that are skilled and they have the certification to do the job. They're not people that are being hired to be a carpenter, an ironworker, a labourer, a concrete person and a jack- of-all-trades on the job site for 20 bucks an hour.

That's what we're talking about when we're talking about hiring the right person for the right job. I hope that answers your question. Thank you. Mr. Chairperson: The time for questions is over for this presenter. I will now call on Joshua LaPointe, private citizen, and ask the moderator to invite them into the meeting. Please unmute yourself and turn your video on. Mr. LaPointe is not here at the moment, so we'll drop him to the bottom of the list. So I'll now call upon Jeff Skinner of IBEW 2085 and ask the moderator to invite them into the meeting. Please unmute yourself and turn your video on. Mr.

Jeff Skin ner (I nternational Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 2085): Hi, everyone . How's it going? Mr. Chairperson: Mr. Skinner, please proceed with your presentation. Mr. Skinner: I just want to apologize. I've been having Internet issues all night, so. Yes, so I'm just speaking, obviously, on PLAs. The majority of unions have training centres, which means workers are safety ready and the majority are safety trained, ready to go on the job.

We have pre-employment programs for new apprentices to ensure that before they go onto job sites that they have a good base before, you know, heading onto the job, which usually keeps them safer and give us a better foundation all the way up until we have our, obviously, journeymen electricians, because I'm part of the IBEW. But, you know, in all the other, for the most part the building trades, a lot of them have training centres as well. Building solid foundations are just going to be building more solid certified tradespeople to perform these projects.

The PLAs ens ure that the bidders that win the contracts win based on the ability to manage the job and efficiencies, not based on trying to cut corners and essentially undercut–whether it's wages or whatever, or trying to find some loophole in trying to win these projects.

Obviously PLAs ensure unemployed Manitobans get first crack at the job, which also includes where we–and unions are huge supporters of, you know, if we're building in certain communities that we involve the community members in the jobs and give them training opportunities which they can take back to their communities even after the projects are done. Having unions involved, I've worked both union and non-union in my career.

I've seen the differences between the management styles, and I can tell y ou this: that unions are heavily involved in solving problems on the jobs when they're still small so they don't fester into big problems. I've been on non-union sites where no, no; they just sweep things under the rug and issues become bigger issues. It drags morale down, productivity goes down, and ultimately the timeline gets way thrown out. And again that's my experience.

And ultimately having union shops managing the jobs and helping progress and harmony of the jobs, just creates way more value for t he dollar for Manitoba infrastructure building, and for Manitobans to enjoy for many years. Honestly, I could tell you this, that in Manitoba the majority of the big jobs that are built are done by union shops, by union members. And where jobs go

April 8, 2021 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 87 awry ar e with not having the proper, well -trained, general foremen, and with the union shops we've done these big jobs; we know how to do it; we're well trained and we can–we train everybody underneath us. It's about lifting each other up and ensuring that we're all successful in the job. In my experience in the non- union–with non- union contractors, is that's not the case; it's everybody for themselves. Unions do keep the members accountable, not only to the contractor but the client, and in this case is, you know, the citizens of Manitoba.

We keep everybody accountable. It's not just–you know, there's a perception that unions hammer, you know, the contractors and we bring people down. That is not the case. That is a big misperception. We're about keeping everybody accountable, keeping a symbiotic relation- ship so we can ensure that progress and harmony continues through the duration of the job and to completion. Another thing is with the PLAs, it, you know, you've talked about being forced unionization and stuff, but the open shops that are successful in winning parts of a PLA, they abide by the contract for the duration of the contract.

If they have other projects somewhere else, you know, they can still do that running as an open shop. And as soon as the job is done, workers or the contractor could go back to work as usual. And, you know what? I bet you over the course of the relationship with the unions and clients with these PLAs, a lot of them are going to see the benefits of having a union involved in ens uring that everybody stays accountable, for helping with training and supporting the contractor throughout the course of the project. Yes. That's essentially it. Mr. Chairperson: Thank you for the presentation.

Do members of the committee have questions for the presenter? Mr. Schuler: Yes, I thank you very much, Mr. Skinner, for being here. And it looks like you're Skyping in from your garage– Floor Comment: I am. * (20:00) Mr. Schuler: –and you know, I would like to say that, again, I've been at this committee, and this actually is the first time we've ever had somebody speak to committee from their garage. So there's a first for you, Mr. Skinner. I just have a quick comment I'd like to make.

There seems to be some misinformation being put on the r ecord that actually, the–for instance, the Burntwood/Nelson Agreement amongst others clearly states the contractor Shell at the time of hire advise all employees who are not members of the appropriate union that they required to secure such membership within 30 calendar days of being hired, and that's

section 12.2.2. I guess you would agree with that, that actually if a non or an open shop bids and wins, that they must unionize. Is that correct? Mr. Skinner: So, my answer to that is, the member– or the worker will unionize, but just for the duration of that PLA. So, the contractor is not union shop, but for the duration of that project–for that project–they're a union shop. All their other projects in Manitoba or out-of-province will not under a union contr act, so they would be essentially double -breasting, is what that would be. For the duration of that project. Mr. Wiebe: Thank you very much, Mr. Skinner.

Once again, it's pretty amazing that somebody joining us from Zoom obviously knows the situation and the ground, has a whole ton of knowledge and it seems like you know more than the minister, and so we've tried to educate the minister all evening here. His predecessor, in fact, tried to educate him about exactly how PLAs work, but he seems to be off just stuck on his own speaking notes and can't seem to listen to the actual people who are coming to present this evening.

So, I just wanted to say I thought your per - spective–you know, having experience both as a–in a unionized setting and a non- unionized s etting was important for this discussion. It sounds like you've got a pretty good sense of how both those environments can work, and it sounds like you're–you know, you're one of the people that wants to just get to work, have your members get to work and get these important projects in Manitoba built.

So, you know, again, I mean, I think you're informing all of us –I'm certainly listening, I think maybe members on the other side of the table aren't paying as close attention, but we–maybe by the end of the evening, we'll have the minister all briefed up on exactly how project labour agreements are a good thing for Manitobans. Thanks for presenting tonight.

88 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA April 8, 2021 Mr. Skinner: Absolutely. You know, I appreciate you saying that. I have been on both sides, and I ca n honestly say that if you talk to an open shop worker, as of right now, and say hey, you know what? You want to join to IBEW for this project? We'll give you 30 per cent increase in pay including benefits and pension, and you know what? We'll throw on the top of the 13 per cent completion bonus. I think that's a pretty good investment, and I don't think too many people are –non-union or open shop workers–would be complaining about that, so.

In my experience, I've never heard one person complain in my whole life about joining a union for a 30 per cent increase, so. Thank you very much. Mr. Gerrard: Yes. Thank you for your presentation. I think what you were trying to say was that safety is not just about setting standards; it's actually about building teams who can work well together and look after each other. Is that correct? Mr.

Skinner: That's absolutely correct, and it starts with supervision and having well -experienced supervision who know how systems work, how to run these big projects, these big crews and filtering all the way from the top all the way to the first level apprentice on the job, all from different walks of life, understanding that everybody has different needs; safety is a team; looking out for each other and working together; all trades in a symbiotic way. And you know, it just comes from a community coming together to do the project, and that's what unions are all about.

It's teamwork and doing the best we can for Manitoba's what it's all about. Mr. Gerrard: Yes. No, that was my question. Thanks so much. Mr. Chairperson: Thank you for your presentation. I will now call on Ed Miller, private citizen, and ask the moderator to invite them into the meeting. Mr. Miller will be dropped from the list since he is not here. So I'll now move on and call on Mr. Joshua LaPointe, private citizen, and ask the moderator to invite them into the meeting. Please unmute yourself and turn your video on. So Mr. LaPointe is not here as well, so we are done with presentations.

That concludes the list of presenters I have before me. * * * Mr. Chairperson: In what order does the committee wish to proceed with the clause -by-clause considera- tion of these bills? Mr. Schuler: In the order as printed on the agenda. Mr. Chairperson: Does the committee agr ee to proceed clause-by-clause for the Bill 13? [Agreed] Bill 13–The Public Sector Construction Projects (Tendering) Act (Continued) Mr. Chairperson: Does the minister responsible for Bill 13 have an opening statement? Hon. Ron Schuler (Minister of Infrastructure): No, Mr. Chair. Mr. Chairperson: We thank the minister.

Does the critic from the official opposition have an opening statement? Mr. Matt Wiebe (Concordia): I want to begin by thanking all the presenters that joined us here this evening. I did learn a lot. And, you know, I always appreciate coming to committee and, you know, getting outside of the bubble of Broadway, getting outside of this building, and I think all of us have something to learn.

I think there's a lot to learn when we listen to the people who are doing the actual work, you know, and especially in a department like infrastructure where we ask so much of folks to build these great infrastructure projects that all of us Manitobans prior- itize. And, you know, and we ask them to, you know, to help us to build these, and we ask that they sometimes put their lives at risk to make it happen. And to hear them first-hand, I think, was an important part of the process. As we know, Bill 13 concerns tenders issued by government and other public sector bodies for construction projects.

Previous governments of all stripes have used project labour agreements on large- capital projects, for example, requiring employers to either employ unionized employees or contribute the equivalent union dues for non-unionized employees. Bill 13, contrary to what the minister says, explicitly bans project labour agreements.

April 8, 2021 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 89 This government, we know, is obsessed with introducing these kinds of anti -labour and anti-union legislation. Banning PLAs on a public i nfrastructure project is extremely short -sighted and will lead to lower wages, more

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	42-3-la4
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	42nd 3rd hansardpdf la4.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	54162784bb2be5e7dd912bba5163b642bb31acf3

Source file is stored in the law ingest library (pdf).