Just to pick up on something that Monsieur Brassard said, I didn't see an appendix to this document at all, so I'm not really sure what he's referring to. Maybe I missed a piece here and there, but having reviewed this document, I see how that aggregated data is being used to really differentiate how people have been impacted by COVID.
Going back to the amendment and Monsieur Villemure's points, when Mr. Villemure presented his main motion, it was after a long and healthy discussion of a motion that had been presented by Monsieur Brassard. Here's what I find to be a little unclear, and perhaps Monsieur Villemure can clarify this for us. When we were discussing the full-on study, which we all agreed to and for which we will hopefully be getting to the witness list and study plans later on today, why was this motion not included, perhaps as part of that initial motion that we met on a 106(4) for? Based on that and my deduction and reasoning, the wording of Monsieur Villemure's motion talks about a report and findings and recommendations, and I'm not sure if we're trying to duplicate the work of the initial study, because it seems that there's a huge overlap between what we've already agreed to study and Monsieur Villemure's motion.
My interpretation of Monsieur Fergus's amendment is that it is really to provide that clarity, to say, okay, we have that study going on, but in the meantime, if we're going to suspend an RFP, then the way to see it to conclusion is to say, okay, the committee's satisfied or the committee's not satisfied. That satisfaction comes from the basis of what is going to be our long and healthy study into this whole issue.
I'm really hoping Monsieur Villemure can provide some clarification around what is the difference between the two. If we're talking about suspending RFPs while we're conducting this study, then for me the language as proposed by Mr. Fergus makes that so much more clear. If we're going back to the language of the main motion, then all we're talking about is that we're not specifying what report and what recommendations. We're just talking, in my interpretation, about what was the motion that was discussed and passed, and this seems to be an addendum, but it's a completely separate thing.
I again encourage members. Perhaps we do need to wait to hear from the health minister, from public health officials, to say we're going to have some clarity around what exactly the scope of the issue is and then come back to this motion. Alternatively, as members see fit, I think the language proposed by Mr. Fergus makes it more distinct and clear on the specific issue that Mr. Villemure has raised on his main motion, which is separate and distinct from a study we've already agreed to do.
We had a very long and healthy discussion among members about the importance of privacy and the importance of protection of data, and how we're all willing to go forward and embark on this study to ensure Canadians are protected. I turn to you, Monsieur Villemure, through the chair. Perhaps you can provide some clarity as to what that distinction is between this motion and the motion we've discussed before and these amendments.