Evidence of meeting #88 for Government Operations and Estimates in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was contract.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kelly McCauley
It's very similar to the other one, so we're just going to read it back in, in English and French, rather than spend time sending it to everyone's P9 email account, if that's okay. It's so similar.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kelly McCauley
Yes, we can.
There are going to be a few moments of delay while we do so.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kelly McCauley
Colleagues, we are going to be a couple of moments, so we will suspend.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kelly McCauley
We are back. We have a hard finish at 8:30. The amendment has been distributed in both languages.
I will turn the floor back to Mrs. Vignola, please, for her amendment.
Bloc
Julie Vignola Bloc Beauport—Limoilou, QC
I'm sorry, the wording received at 8:20 is not what I said.
Bloc
Julie Vignola Bloc Beauport—Limoilou, QC
I sent you the text in French, and the text I see in English doesn't correspond to what I sent.
Conservative
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kelly McCauley
I'm sorry. We'll suspend again for a few minutes.
The clerks are going to look at the translation.
November 27th, 2023 / 8:30 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kelly McCauley
Committee members, we are back. I apologize. I think the wrong version went out.
I understand this is the correct one. Speaking to this amendment, we have Mr. Sousa, Mr. Jowhari, and Mr. Kusmierczyk.
Mrs. Vignola has the floor.
Bloc
Julie Vignola Bloc Beauport—Limoilou, QC
The amendment you just received is the right one. It focuses on the information we're looking for in particular and would propose the following: “an order do issue for the production of copies of any contract, memorandum of understanding, or any other agreement between a minister, department, agency or Crown corporation of the Government of Canada, including, but not limited to, any provisions related to the hiring and use of foreign workers and related to language of work requirements and language of work”.
In addition, paragraphs (g) and (h) are no longer there. Perfect.
I think this highlights the information we're looking for, while allowing us to see and discuss contracts. That's the consensus I'm trying to bring.
Liberal
Charles Sousa Liberal Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
With regard to the amendment, we recognize that there are other stakeholders in all of this. The Conservative Party of Ontario and the Government of Ontario are also very involved and engaged in the foreign workers, as well as in the engagement of this contract, and the enablement of what we are doing. I, therefore, find it ironic that the Conservative cousins are not really aligned now with what is being proposed with regard to the opening and divulging of the contracts.
We agree that it's important for us to have a review, as proposed, regarding the labour market impact assessment, which was also part of this amendment. We call for that, and we recognize that it's an important piece, which dovetails with what the member is asking for with respect to those contracts being divulged through her amendment. That's important.
I know we're also sensitive about time. I'm just concerned, now, that as a result of the expiry of time and resources, we'll suspend yet again. Let it be known that, as a consequence, we're not going to have OGGO tomorrow. It will be presumably postponed in order to continue with this issue as we proceed forward.
I just want to add there are other considerations that I don't think are being taken. This is important, and we agree with the proposed amendment, including the contracts that are here, provided we do that with a sense of sensitivity, recognizing the exposure this has with the competitive nature of Ontario and Canada going forward with other similar foreign direct investment opportunities.
I'll leave it at that.
It's back to you, Mr. Chair.
Liberal
Majid Jowhari Liberal Richmond Hill, ON
We have now spent four hours trying to get a copy of this contract. We were very comfortable, to start with, having a redacted copy to see whether we were comfortable, seeking what we want to see. We also agreed to include the hiring plan submitted to the Government of Canada during the process of incentive negotiations, which basically brings into light the fact that there was a hiring plan.
It is clear, and it's been confirmed by LG Energy Solution, that it was going to hire 2,500 Canadians. It has already hired about 130, and it continues to hire as per the hiring plan submitted to the Government of Canada.
When we look at the contract, starting with the redacted one, I am hoping that the hiring plan submitted to the Government of Canada is not part of that redaction. That basically opens up the answers to the questions everyone is asking, how many foreign workers, for what purpose are they coming here, and how many of them are part-time?
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kelly McCauley
I will interrupt because we're running short of time. Can I bring you back to Ms. Vignola's amendment specifically?
Liberal
Majid Jowhari Liberal Richmond Hill, ON
Sure. We are comfortable with that amendment, so long as we agree on the fact that we will look at the redacted contract first. Then, if need be, we'll move to a private setting and look at the unredacted version.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kelly McCauley
Can I clarify that? I don't see anything in the amendment about redaction. I want to make sure that we're on the right one.
Liberal
Majid Jowhari Liberal Richmond Hill, ON
We support that amendment, but we would be moving another motion subsequent to that.