Once again, Madam Chair, the bill starts with a good intention, which we support, but we would like it to be more clearly defined or more clearly described.
This is the proposed amendment:
(2.1) The information to be provided must specify
(a) the number of apprentices the bidder plans to employ, broken down by trade;
(b) the measures that he or she intends to implement to help these apprentices complete their training ... [or] apprenticeship ... .
The list goes on. I will spare you my reading the entire amendment, since you have it in front of you.
Very clearly, the time that would be spent on doing this would be time gained at the report stage. I think everyone would win.
I would also note that, according to a study by the Mowat Centre relating to good strategic practices to adopt in agreements on community benefits, these policies have not had great success in the United States, precisely because there was no requirement for clear criteria.
That is the purpose of the amendment submitted. It means that targets will be clear and well defined, so that everyone can be on a level playing field at the bidding stage.