Let's Talk Community Benefits Agreements

The impact of private contracts on the BCconstruction sector

By / Natalie Bruckner

It has been more than 18 months since B.C. Premier John Horgan announced that key government infrastructure projects would be built under new private contracts called community benefits agreements (CBAs) in the hope of better prioritizing minority groups who live in close proximity to future provincial projects.

While the first two projects covered by the agreement are already underway—the Pattullo Bridge replacement and the widening of the Trans-Canada Highway from Kamloops to Alberta—it is fair to say that the rollout of CBAs has been less than smooth. In fact, it seems more questions have been raised than answered, despite numerous workshops and conferences being held on the subject.

While not a new concept in North America, CBAs are new to B.C. and are expected to change the landscape in which the government is administering public-private partnership (P3) contracts for major infrastructure projects in the province.

To put it simply, a CBA is an agreement that sets out hiring provisions on publicly funded infrastructure projects, such as schools, roads, and dams. Typically, a CBA will include provisions for the hiring of qualified local workers, Indigenous Peoples, apprentices, and women in trades.

Hamish Stewart, executive secretary treasurer with the British Columbia Regional Council of Carpenters and member of the BC Building Trades (founding organization of the Community Benefits Coalition of BC), sees CBAs as a great benefit to the industry. In his opinion, fair representation has long been an issue in the province. “Women only represent four percent of workers in the skilled construction trades, and it has been that way for decades without improvement,” he says. “Indigenous workers are also underrepresented, although reliable data is difficult to acquire due to sensitivities around self-identification and other factors. Needless to say, we must and can do better.”

Stewart adds that CBAs also provide these groups an avenue to progress in their trade. “The member unions of the Allied Infrastructure and Related Construction Council invest more than $20 million a year in our union training schools, to which workers on a CBA will have access. Workers on a CBA will also receive training in cultural competency so that the workforce of the future is inclusive, diverse, welcoming, and free of discrimination and harassment.”

Opponents to CBAs, however, claim this is all just a case of whitewashing, adding that equality is already part of their mandate. Paul de Jong, president of the Progressive Contractors Association of Canada (PCA) explains: “Contractors know already that hiring women and Indigenous people is an obvious thing they should do, and they don’t have be told to do it,” he says. Instead, there are concerns that a focus on local hires, often in areas where there is already a skills shortage, will mean major investment will be needed, and that raises questions over where these funds will come from.

And this takes us to the heart of the issue for opponents to CBAs: the governance of the new association and the who, what, where, and how.

According to the British Columbia Construction Association (BCCA), a true CBA is a social requirement attached to a public project during tendering, which is intended to guarantee local opportunities for equity-seeking groups and require builders to improve public spaces or provide other specific “giving back” benefits that the local community defines. This idea is fully supported by the BCCA. However, the BCCA claims that the “Made in BC” CBA is a Project Labour Agreement that favours a designated union, and this contravenes the rights of construction workers to freedom of assembly.

This concerns opponents. It is believed it will undermine the role of all employers in the industry, regardless of their labour affiliation, and discourage contractors from bidding on public projects.

“The BC CBA will require all workers on a public project to join the BC Building Trades Union; a new Crown Corporation [the BC Infrastructure Benefits Inc.] will be their legal employer; the Crown Corporation will hire, promote, discipline, and pay all workers as their employer; the BC Building Trades Union will receive dues and contributions from every employee; union rules apply: wages, hours, meals, shifts, weather, call-ins, standby vacation; and workers who belong to other unions must also join the BC Building Trades Union,” explains Chris Atchison, president, BCCA.

“Conscription of the construction workforce into designated unions as a condition of work on public projects is counterproductive to the health of our industry and our economy and infringes on our rights and freedoms as Canadians,” adds Atchison.

The concern is that the CBA will tip the balance of power away from union employers to the unions themselves, subsequently undermining the role of all employers in the construction industry, whether union or open-shop.

Stewart, however, says these concerns are in a contradiction in terms. “What they are saying is that employers already have a balance of power and are worried about relinquishing some of their power under a CBA, and at the same time they are concerned about protecting the rights of their workers to freedom of assembly.

“Ideally, workers should have a say in their work life, and that’s what union representation affords,” Stewart says. “Unions are member-driven and based on democratic principles. When workers belong to a union, they have a say in their work life. Furthermore, collective agreements are negotiated by employers and unions together, and they are aimed at regulating the terms and conditions of work in an equitable and transparent way.”

The union versus non-union debate is a tricky one, and it seems the B.C. CBAs are making some feel backed into a corner.

Stewart however believes that freedom of enterprise doesn’t mean ignoring the protection of public interests. “Unfortunately public interests have not been protected by the traditional way we’ve been building infrastructure in this province,” he says. “It’s in the public interest to provide workforce training and apprenticeship. It’s in the public interest to provide opportunities for employment and advancement to local residents. It’s in the public interest to increase the ratio of underrepresented groups in the skilled trades. And, it’s in the public interest to be fiscally responsible with taxpayer dollars. These things haven’t happened, and instead we’ve seen project after project go massively over budget.”

As examples, he cites the BC portion of the Evergreen line that was budgeted at $410 million, but whose final cost was $586 million, representing 43 per cent over budget. Another example he offers is the Vancouver Convention Centre that was budgeted at $495 million but whose final cost was $841 million, representing 70 per cent over budget.

While both sides bring forward valid points, there are undoubtedly questions that need to be addressed in order to find some common ground. And, perhaps one of the biggest gripes is that organizations like the BCCA weren’t invited to the table in the first place to have these discussions.

So where do we go from here?

The BCCA is taking four public actions concerning the controversial aspects of the government’s new policy: deploying a grassroots letter writing campaign to the premier, local MLAs, and MPs; hosting a series of members-only Town Halls across BC; filing a petition in the B.C. Supreme Court (Pattullo Bridge Petition) on the grounds that the Building Trades Only Employment Requirement breaches the freedom of expression and association rights of construction workers by forcing them to join and pay dues as a condition of working on public construction projects, and the government’s stated objectives for this requirement do not justify the infringements of the Charter of Rights of construction workers; and submitting a policy recommendation to government that will propose more productive solutions for achieving the local and equity-seeking hiring goals, as well as timely and on-budget project outcomes.

This will, no doubt, be a discussion that will continue for the foreseeable future. ▪