I'm fine with it. I think the subamendment is not a problem.
The issue, Mr. Chair.... I just want to deal with both the amendment and the subamendment, if I may, and go through the issues that I see.
Again, essentially, I'm disturbed by the fact that we didn't see this before, because I would like to have had time to consider it and understand all of the issues. Maybe Mr. McCauley is right when he says that the WTO part is not necessary. At first blush, it seems to me that I don't want to pass something without having a proper study and knowledge of whether or not I'm in violation of WTO rules. That's why I proposed to include it: because right now I didn't know enough. I mean, if we had the motion for a few days, that would be one thing. If we're thrown at it in the context of a meeting, we have no time to check anything.
On the word “deplores”, I want to explain my logic. Of course, I would like everything as much as possible to come from Canadian companies, and of course we on the Hill, more than anyone in our federal departments, should be using Canadian produced goods as much as we possibly can, but to say that something is deplorable.... I don't know, for example—and none of us do—that those masks were not purchased in some big stockpile in March of 2020 when nothing else was available. None of us knows what the stockpile is. None of us knows when they were actually purchased. To say “deplorable” to people who worked on getting those contracts and sourcing them at the beginning.... I don't feel that it's right for the committee to say that their work was deplorable. We just don't know. That's why I proposed to attenuate the wording.
With respect to January 31 and what Mr. Johns said, I think it's totally reasonable. If the motion said, “Look, we see an issue, we're very concerned and we're upset that the masks used in federal departments and on Parliament Hill are not being sourced from Canadian companies, and we ask that government investigate this and come back to the committee by January 31st with a response that indicates how quickly all of these things can be sourced from Canadian companies”, I would be fine with that. But this motion basically calls on everything to be replaced by January 31. I don't know if that's possible. I don't know if we'd be breaching contracts.
Again, the problem is with something being thrown at us at the very last minute with no ability on our part to research it. So while I have no problem with Mr. Johns' subamendment and I would include it as part of what I'm proposing—I have no problem with that—again, I just don't think that the motion as it is currently worded, without any of my amendments, is plausible. I would ask the committee that we at least change the date or agree to change this to “that a government response be provided by January 31”. If the committee is willing to do that, then I'll come back with a different amendment. Because, again, I don't think it's reasonable, with no knowledge of what the contracts are and no knowledge of what the situation is, what the stockpile is or what contracts could be put in place, that we're putting in a date of January 31st for this to happen.
I hope that explains why I put forward that amendment. Again, I'm happy to include Mr. Johns' words as part of whatever amendment I'm proposing.