First of all, I think it is very important that the committee turn its attention to figuring out what the cost drivers are in the housing market. We know it is a real concern for Canadians who are trying to get into the real estate market or who have family trying to get into the real estate market. That is something that, even well before the pandemic, was getting harder and harder to do. The trend line that has been leading to this crisis in housing is a long one, going back quite a ways, so it would be a productive use of the committee's time to turn its attention to that.
I'm also glad to see a suggestion reflected in the motion that we look at some of the other serious cost pressures on Canadian households, including the very real cost increases people are seeing at the grocery store, and some discussion of supply chains and how those are affecting the prices of goods in the Canadian economy.
The language here is a little prescriptive in terms of the solution, but I'm quite on board with the following. In fact, earlier today at a press conference I was just discussing with my colleague and NDP health critic, Don Davies, the need to support a robust domestic manufacturing industry in respect of medical PPE, as just one example.
There are other examples of essential goods where Canadians are currently exposed to disruption in international supply chains, whether that is the result of a public health crisis as has been the case in the pandemic, or the result of natural disasters, which we understand are going to happen more frequently as climate change manifests itself more frequently and more severely.
We want to be able to look at that question of supply chain disruptions and how they are affecting pricing in the Canadian economy. We definitely have some ideas about what some solutions might be, but it is important for the committee to be able to look at that aspect in a very broad way.
Energy prices, of course, are another serious issue in the Canadian economy. We kind of get it both ways. When energy prices are low, that's a problem for many Canadians who depend on that industry for their livelihoods, and when prices are high it can be a real problem for Canadian consumers. We're seeing some of that too.
That would be an example of the kind of item the committee might consider under the fourth point.
In respect to the number of meetings to hold, I'm a bit agnostic. I would like to see the number of meetings driven by the nature of the study. I don't think it would be hard to do 10 meetings on the housing question alone. There is a lot to hear about, and given that it's a broader study we may actually want more meetings than 10 or 12. I find it hard to conceive of our addressing the three issues named here as well as any other issues that may come up, such as energy prices or others, in a simple 10-meeting study, but that is something that shouldn't be a sticking point today. If we get into the study and we need more meetings, that will be apparent and the committee shouldn't feel bound by whatever particular number we happen to land on today. We should feel free to add meetings as required.
For the moment, I am going to move an amendment that we delete the date of Wednesday, January 19. The NDP is having its national caucus meetings in that week, which extend over that day, so it's not a day when I would be able to attend. It would also be very difficult to have a substitute attend, because we're all going to be at the same meeting.
As that is a legitimate part of our parliamentary work, I expect that we wouldn't want our committee meetings to interfere with our national caucus meetings. I understand that other parties are going to be having similar meetings, as they normally do in the month of January. I don't know if any of these other dates would conflict with their meetings, but I would certainly hope that we can find an agreement here that wouldn't create a conflict between our caucus meetings and committee meetings.
With that, Mr. Chair, I move that we delete the words “Wednesday, January 19” from the motion. This amendment is motivated by my previous remarks.