Always my concern with the speakers list not changing is I am in support of the subamendment; however, I have great difficulty still with one part of the motion as it stands.
My fear is if we use this method of me speaking to the subamendment, then I would also need to be speaking to the amended motion. It really follows very much on Mr. Bergeron's comments that I do believe we should find a non-partisan way of doing it, but there is a degree of polemic in this motion. When it says that the committee recognizes the failure by the government to secure domestic supply makes Canadians more vulnerable, that doesn't have anything to do with the motion as it stands and it is also an opinion that has not been verified by a committee study.
We're attempting to make a motion to report it to the House not based on evidence we have had before our committee, but on the opinion of a member, and I don't think that's the best way to move forward. There's a place for that, and that is to bring a motion to the House. There's a place for that, and that's to call for a take-note debate or an emergency debate. Those are bona fide parliamentary procedures that are there.
This is not that. The committee does not normally do this kind of work. Maybe a subcommittee does, but we don't do this. What this fails to do is also recognize the leadership of the Government of Canada with respect to the COVAX initiative around the world. What if Canada hadn't been out early and demonstrating that this initiative is designed to encourage wealthy and more developed countries to make commitments to COVAX with the knowledge that they could use that for their own domestic supply? It was a very important device that Canada took leadership on. When I read the motion as it stands, it doesn't have any of that nuance. It doesn't have any of that.
All of this is to say that it's giving you a little bit of a notice that I will be back to speak to this motion and I will want to deal with something in the middle of it. Meanwhile, I quite like Mr. Bergeron's subamendment and feel that I would support it, but I want to get back then to Ms. Sahota's amendment and then back to the original motion.