Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I really appreciate my colleague Ms. Vignola's comments.
First, I like the fact that the other motions are notices of motion. When we talk about the issues that the committee must address—even though I more or less agree with the four proposed studies—we should all have a deadline in January to submit our motions and to hold substantive discussions after all committee members have seen the motions from all the parties. I would like to see this approach used for future motions.
When it comes to this specific proposal, Mr. Chair, I would have preferred to have more of a chance to study which contracts are currently in place with suppliers. As we all remember, last March when this issue arose, we were desperate to procure whatever protective equipment we could and we entered into agreements with whoever was then available to supply the protective equipment. I don't know the duration or term of those contracts. I don't know the scope of those contracts. I don't know how much stock we have in place right now in the House of Commons. What if we have stock that lasts us through next July? Does it mean that we have to throw out all of the things that had been purchased from other suppliers already in order to transition to domestic suppliers by January 31? I don't think the committee has knowledge of what contracts are in place in order to adopt this motion saying that by January 31 we're only going to use things that are coming from Canadian businesses.
I would invite my colleagues to consider using this as a notice of motion, keeping in mind that this is our first meeting back. I say this because I just don't have the knowledge. If we do want to consider it now, there are two things I think we would really need to amend. The first is the date, because during the holidays and without knowing the scope of the contacts, it would definitely not be possible to do this by January 31 of next year. I would suggest that we would want to say “as soon as contractually possible”. Basically, we would respect the scope of whatever contracts exist and then say “as soon as contractually or reasonably possible”, or something like that.
Mr. Chair, the other thing I would say about the way the motion is worded, which I really would suggest has to be changed, is the way it makes it seem like Quebec is outside of Canada. It's the way we're saying “Quebec and Canadian businesses” as if Quebec businesses are not Canadian businesses. I think we could easily say “Canadian businesses, including those from the province of Quebec” or “Canadian businesses, including Quebec businesses”, but not make it seem like these are two different countries already with two different businesses.
Those are my main comments. Again, I would invite my colleagues to consider whether or not it's possible to defer this, so we can come back at the first meeting with knowledge of the contracts that exist and what supply the House of Commons currently has. Then we would determine what is realistic.
I'll come back on this, Mr. Chair, if people wish to move forward today and amendments are required. Then I'll propose actual amendments.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.