Alberta can’t afford B.C.-style protectionism

Special interests are the only winners, Ken Kobly says.

Alberta Premier Rachel Notley announced recently that the province will be “moving ahead with community benefit agreements to ensure public infrastructure investments benefit Alberta workers and local communities.”

She appears to be following in B.C. Premier John Horgan’s footsteps with these agreements. Albertans should ask why.

News flash: Following Horgan’s lead is bad for business and Albertans.

B.C.’s protectionist policy on Trans Mountain values special interests more than shared benefits for Canadians. The same values are promoted with B.C.’s community benefit agreement. Special interests get more benefits, the public less, from major infrastructure investments. Associating with these views makes no sense for this province.

A Vancouver Sun article on March 25 this year, titled Community benefit agreements: Who are they working for? It might not be you, highlighted these values at work developing B.C.’s benefit agreements. It noted, “for most of us, these CBAs appear to be straightforward frameworks aimed at leaving communities better than they were found before a project’s construction. But it seems some interested parties view them as a perfect opportunity to further very specific agendas.”

The B.C. Building Trades union-only hiring model announced in August did advance specific agendas. Then, coincidentally, Building Trades of Alberta began promoting these agreements and Notley makes her announcement at their convention in Jasper.

Albertans, ask your MLA who the benefits will be for.

B.C.’s community benefit agreements for two major projects include 32 cents per personhour in payments to unions for various funds, and 25 cents per person-hour payment for “union administration.” A new Crown corporation created to collect fees and mandate job placements means less transparency, more red tape and higher project costs. A growing public payroll at taxpayers’ expense.

The vast majority, 85 per cent, of construction workers not part of the building trades affiliated unions in B.C. will face a tough choice: join a building trades union to work on government projects, and, by doing so, forego the benefits, advancement opportunities and bonuses building trade unions often don’t provide. It is a cruel joke for workers who were counting on Trans Mountain.

An injunction to the B.C. Supreme Court has been filed asking that the government’s new building trades union-only hiring model for taxpayer-funded construction projects be struck down on grounds that:

Forced unionization is inconsistent with

■

sections 2( b) and 2(d) of the Charter and unlawfully restricts freedom of association;

It discriminates against the approximately

■

85 per cent of the men and women in construction in B.C. who are not members of a building trades union;

It is unfair and violates the principles of

■

openness and transparency that British Columbians rightly expect when the government seeks contractors for taxpayer-funded work.

Alberta’s economy cannot afford B.C.’s benefits model. Government deficits, debt, and regulatory costs are already crippling investment and employment opportunities. Aligning with B.C.’s protectionist policy will not help Alberta’s Trans Mountain advocacy either; we are asking Confederation partners to rise above special interests to benefit the nation.

Our efforts to #KeepCanadaWorking are staked on principles of shared prosperity to reduce barriers to trade, labour mobility and procurement.

Businesses and thousands of workers, not just Albertans, are out of work with delayed pipeline construction. Two-stepping to a special interest tune with B.C.’s premier by closing our doors on public infrastructure procurement would set a bad example for Ottawa and send a poor message to Canadians. What would it say to you if we did not stand firmly for shared prosperity?

At recent meetings with Alberta Labour and the parliamentary secretary for small business, the Alberta Chambers of Commerce was told Alberta’s benefits model would look nothing like B.C.’s. We hope so. Notley did commit to pilot one first and “get it right.”

We would encourage her to get it right for us all.