jmcomic������������

WINNIPEG – Several Manitoba construction industry associations concerned over the development and implementation of the Manitoba Jobs Agreement (MJA) are calling for an independent review after documents obtained through Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) requests show a significant “absence of consultation.”

According to a release, the records raise issues regarding how the MJA framework was developed and the “apparent lack of publicly available procurement analysis supporting one of the most significant changes to Manitoba public infrastructure procurement in decades.”

According to the provincial government, the MJA is a provincial policy that prioritizes Manitoba workers on major government infrastructure projects to deliver higher wages, benefits and strong safety protections. It is meant to boost local employment, workforce development through apprenticeships and project stability by setting consistent terms for union and non-union trades.

But the Winnipeg Construction Association (WCA), Construction Association of Rural Manitoba (CARM) and Manitoba Heavy Construction Association (MHCA) say the agreements are , and add the FIPPA documents seem to support that.

In particular, the documents reveal:

• The MJA was developed by Manitoba Building Trades representatives and submitted to the provincial government on July 23, 2025;
• the province and Manitoba Building Trades held only one meeting on August 26, 2025 to discuss the MJA; and
• the agreement was signed only 13 days later.

“This is not a minor administrative policy,” said Darryl Harrison, director of stakeholder engagement with the WCA, in a statement. “The MJA fundamentally changes procurement conditions on publicly funded infrastructure projects, affects contractor participation, alters labour administration practices, and impacts billions of dollars in taxpayer-funded construction work. Manitobans should expect a significantly higher level of consultation, transparency and procurement analysis before a framework of this magnitude is implemented.”

An open letter entitled Setting the Record Straight on the Manitoba Jobs Agreement posted on the Manitoba Building Trades Council X account on May 19 directly contrasts the claims being made by the associations.

“The Manitoba Jobs Agreement does not prohibit Manitoba workers from participating on projects. Contractors are able to bring their existing workforce, and Manitobans – union and non-union alike – are working on these projects today,” it reads in part.

“The only circumstance currently limiting participation by some contractors or workers is the co-ordinated decision by certain organizations to discourage or boycott participation under prevailing wage, benefit, apprenticeship and workforce standards established within the agreement.

“That is not exclusion by the Manitoba Jobs Agreement. It is a voluntary business and political decision being made by specific groups within the industry. The MJA does not eliminate competitive bidding.”

According to the opposing associations, the FIPPA materials “further undermine suggestions that Project Labour Agreements (PLAs) are standard procurement tools for ordinary public infrastructure projects.”

Manitoba’s primary historic PLA examples involved extraordinary megaprojects such as the Red River Floodway Expansion and Manitoba Hydro projects.

“These records show PLAs have historically been used selectively on massive megaprojects with extraordinary labour co-ordination requirements — not as broad procurement frameworks for routine public infrastructure,” said Chris Lorenc, president and CEO of the MHCA.

The three construction associations have written to the Manitoba ombudsman to ask for a review of the process to develop the MJA and recommend a pause in it further use.

“This issue has moved well beyond a normal policy disagreement,” said Shawn Wood, executive director of CARM. “It is now a serious public-interest procurement issue involving transparency, competition, governance, worker choice and accountability for taxpayer dollars.”