Government Operations Committee on Dec. 16th, 2021

[The Chair, Conservative, Robert Gordon Kitchen]

We sort of have consensus on that wording. We'll have a discussion of the amendment with that wording and the addition from Mr. Paul-Hus.

Ms. Vignola, I see your hand is up. I'm sorry for the delay.

[Julie Vignola, Bloc, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

I understand my colleagues' point of view when they tell me that Quebec is part of Canada. Until we have proof to the contrary, we're still part of Canada.

It's not that I want to be stubborn. I just want everything to be clear. It's important for us to include Quebec and Canada. As a nation, we just want to be well represented in the decisions.

That's why we write in this manner, with a reference to the Quebec nation. Mr. Housefather's proposal to state “Canadian companies, including those from Quebec” is perfectly acceptable to me.

I just wanted to explain why we specify Quebec and Canada in our wording.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Robert Gordon Kitchen]

Thank you, Ms. Vignola.

Mr. Housefather, just so you're aware, you're not muted. That's just to clarify for you in case you sneeze or something.

We have Mr. McCauley.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

I'm fine. Let's just move on. This is getting silly.

[The Chair, Conservative, Robert Gordon Kitchen]

Thank you, Mr. McCauley.

Mr. Lobb.

[Ben Lobb, Conservative, Huron—Bruce, ON]

Thank you very much. It's nice to see you, Mr. Chair.

I'm new to this committee. I'm glad to be here.

I'll just say that Madame Vignola made her motion. It was my understanding that they were going to take out “Quebec” and it was just going to be “Canada”. Mr. Housefather then inserts “Quebec” back into the equation, which makes no sense to me at all—no offence to him.

I don't know why we wouldn't just leave it as it is. If we're going down this road.... I'm from Ontario, so I'd like that in there. I know Mr. McCauley is from Alberta and I know he'd like that in there too. I know Mr. Kitchen is from Saskatchewan and maybe he'd like that in too.

Let's leave the ridiculousness out of this at the start of this committee. We had an agreement. Let's just deal with it, leave it as “Canada”, focus on what the issue is and get rid of the Chinese masks.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Robert Gordon Kitchen]

Thank you, Mr. Lobb.

Is there any further discussion on the amendment?

I'm not seeing any. Mr. Clerk, could you read the amendment as you see it, please? Then we can vote on the amendment.

[The Clerk]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My understanding is that Mr. Paul-Hus has proposed that the motion be amended by removing the words “Quebec and/or” before the word “Canadian” and replacing them with “Canadian, including those from Quebec”. So it would read, “Canadian companies, including those from Quebec, that produce” this type of protective equipment. Then the following text would be added at the end of the motion, “and that the chair of the committee write to the Speaker of the House to inform him of the situation and ask that measures be taken to resolve the situation before the date specified in the motion.”

In French it would be adding:

“et que le président du Comité écrive une lettre au Président de la Chambre pour l'informer de la situation et demander que des mesures soient prises pour corriger la situation avant la date indiquée dans la motion.”

That is the amendment as it stands right now, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Robert Gordon Kitchen]

Thank you, Mr. Clerk.

That is the amended motion we have in front of us right now. Do we have consensus on this amendment?

(Amendment agreed to)

I'm assuming we do. Therefore we will now discuss the motion as amended.

Mr. Jowhari, I see your hand up.

[Majid Jowhari, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to bring up a couple of points vis-à-vis this motion and the reasons that I support my colleague Mr. Housefather asking for more time for us to be able to get some facts and data.

Number one, I think we really need to understand the inventory, where we are, and the efficacy of the inventory. As my colleague Mr. Paul-Hus indicated, it would also be good to understand, given the new variant, whether this inventory is effective. Then if we are in a position to be able to replace these, we'll be doing that in a very knowledgeable way. That's number one.

Number two, when we go that exclusive that it will all be produced by Canadian manufacturers, I don't know what the impact on the World Trade Organization is going to be. Are we doing anything that goes against some of the free trade agreements we have signed? Are we going to be in a position where we may have some sort of litigation? Also, we say “Canadian companies”. A lot of Canadian companies bring parts from all over the world and then they manufacture here or they assemble here. So the fact that a company is a Canadian company or a company in Quebec that is Canadian does not necessarily mean that it manufactures from A to Z in Canada and has a 100% Canadian product.

I draw my colleagues' attention to our automotive industry and the fact that not all the parts are manufactured in Canada, and I also draw my colleagues' attention to the challenge that we have with the EV situation that we are facing down south with some of the incentives being proposed by our American colleagues.

Please consider these three things as input that we need to consider. I support the idea that we really need some time to be able to study this and to make sure we have all the facts. I would suggest that we conclude by looking at the facts that we need to be provided to us, and that we reach out to PSPC to get some information from them so we can have a lot more substantive conversation around this, because I think this is an important point for us to consider or a study for us to do.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Robert Gordon Kitchen]

Thank you, Mr. Jowhari.

Mr. Kusmierczyk.

[Irek Kusmierczyk, Liberal, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, but I would like to yield the opportunity to speak to my colleague Anthony Housefather, if that's possible. I'm happy to stick around for some additional comments after that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Robert Gordon Kitchen]

Thank you.

Mr. Housefather.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Chair, I circulated further amendments, which I have sent with a red line in the English version, and have translated them into French. I haven't redlined it, but the French translation is contained in the document I emailed to the clerk and the committee. Everybody can check their email.

I don't know, Mr. Chair, if you would like me to read my amendments into the record now and then let the committee look at them. I yield to you as to what process you would like me to follow.

[The Chair, Conservative, Robert Gordon Kitchen]

Thank you, Mr. Housefather.

Yes, I think if you would read your amendments, that will, hopefully, give people time to find what you have sent to them. I'm assuming what you are proposing now is an amendment to the amended motion.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Yes, sir.

[The Chair, Conservative, Robert Gordon Kitchen]

Go ahead and read your amendments. That, hopefully, will give people time to pull up what you have sent them and have a look at it.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

In the third line of the first paragraph, I would propose changing the words “the Committee deplores” to “the Committee is concerned” before “the fact that the masks”. So change the word “deplores” to “is concerned”.

In the second line of the second paragraph, change the date “January 31, 2022,” to “as soon as reasonably possible”, and after the words “Canadian companies including those from Quebec”, or however we amended the motion properly in the first go-round, in the second-last line of the second paragraph add the words “to the extent possible respecting all WTO rules”.

Mr. Chairman, I will give you the reasons for the amendment.

The word “deplores”, I think, is far too strong given the fact that these may well have been sourced at a time in the pandemic when we were desperate to get PPE from anywhere and the Canadian companies had not commenced operations. I don't think it is fair to say that we deplore something. I think we could say we're concerned that there are masks being distributed that are not from Canadian businesses.

I don't think January 31, 2022, is a reasonable date given that the holidays are coming up and nobody on this committee knows the terms of the contracts involved. We also don't know how much stock we have from what we have already purchased, and we don't want to waste existing stock. I think putting “as soon as reasonably possible” is a good compromise.

Finally, we can say we want them to come from Canadian companies as much as we want, but we have to respect all WTO rules and rules of agreements that we are part of. It actually is in violation—I know that—of WTO rules to say we simply want it to be only from Canadian companies, so I would like to include the words “to the extent possible that it be from Canadian companies...while respecting all WTO rules”.

If these amendments are adopted, then I will feel comfortable voting for the motion. If these are not adopted, then I will have to vote against it because I don't think at that point that the motion would be reasonable.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[The Chair, Conservative, Robert Gordon Kitchen]

Thank you, Mr. Housefather.

Mr. Kusmierczyk, do you want to add anything after? I have Mr. Kusmierczyk, Ms. Vignola and then Mr. McCauley.

[Irek Kusmierczyk, Liberal, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

First of all I just want to begin by saying how much I appreciate the work of Madame Vignola. I'm really delighted that she's back on the committee, because she always brings forward excellent studies and excellent ideas for issues that are pertinent to be studied.

On this particular motion, I'm struggling because the original motion contains the words “deplores the fact”, which MP Housefather's amended motion removes. That's important because no fact has been established by this committee. There has not been a single moment of any testimony by witnesses to establish this as fact. We have not heard from officials to understand what percentage of PPE is derived from where. As a committee, we haven't heard any testimony; we haven't had a single document in front of us to establish this as fact. Yet the original motion states that this is fact. I haven't seen any arguments. I haven't seen any evidence that states that this is fact.

I would support MP Housefather's amended motion as well because it removes that particular statement that I find problematic. I would really implore, or I would ask Madame Vignola to consider giving us a little bit of time to actually look at some of the evidence and to have some of that brought before this committee so that we can establish certain facts. I would really implore my colleague Madame Vignola to consider giving us a little time to actually look at the evidence here before we send this out.

The other part I want to raise—and this is also regarding the amendment—is that we have in Windsor—Tecumseh companies that produce PPE. They don't manufacture all of the components of that particular PPE. They assemble them. They put them together. They alter them. I would hate to see this motion discriminate in any way against companies like ours in Windsor—Tecumseh, which assemble the PPE and put it together but don't necessarily manufacture all of the components of it.

Again I implore Madame Vignola to give us time to properly discuss this, to give us time to properly study and establish the facts to make sure that the motion we put forward is surgical, specific, and rooted in testimony, evidence and fact. I would support MP Housefather's amendment, but I would certainly ask MP Vignola to consider giving us time to properly study this situation.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Robert Gordon Kitchen]

Thank you, Mr. Kusmierczyk.

Just to be clear, this is an amendment to the amended motion that we're discussing at this point in time.

I have Ms. Vignola, Mr. McCauley, Mr. Johns and then Mr. Lobb.

Ms. Vignola.

[Julie Vignola, Bloc, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

I'll be brief.

I'm wondering about the relevance of voting on a subamendment that amends an amendment that has already been adopted by my colleagues. Can we change a motion that has already been adopted?

Regarding the World Trade Organization rules, or WTO rules, we're talking about national security, public health and masks. With all due respect to my colleague, Mr. Kusmierczyk, I must say that you need only look at the box to know that the masks were made in China. I don't know how many witnesses will be needed to prove that. I don't think that it's necessary.

[Voices]

Oh, oh! (laughter)

[Julie Vignola, Bloc, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

As has been pointed out, companies in Quebec, Ontario and across Canada are making masks. Even though we need to set an example for the Canadian economy, we're using masks manufactured abroad and not at home. We aren't asking to change all mask supply contracts in Canada. At the very least, we're asking that our masks be made at home.

The masks that we make here help maintain jobs in a new time of uncertainty. They help protect people better because our standards are high, strict and recognized. I would be surprised if, in spite of this, a country decides to take us to court to ensure that we use masks made in China or in another country, masks that don't generate any economic benefits in our country, because we aren't manufacturing them. Ultimately, the truck drivers are the only ones who provide an economic benefit by transporting the masks.

However, masks manufactured in Ontario, Alberta, Quebec or other parts of Canada have direct, indirect and induced effects. We must take this into consideration in our decision‑making process.

We want to help our people, our economy and our economic recovery. We could do so by setting an example for everyone. Today, in Quebec alone, there are 2,800 new cases. Let's make sure that this rapid spread, which is worse than what we've seen in the past, doesn't keep increasing and doesn't become more serious. Let's use safe masks with recognized efficacy and manufacturing standards. That's what's required. I don't think that we need to call witnesses and officials so that they notice that the masks are made in China. In my humble opinion, we don't need to spend two or three meetings on this issue in January. It would delay our work.

Furthermore, the amendment that I read was drafted quickly and the notions are repeated. I'm criticized for wanting to include the two nations that currently make up Canada at this time, meaning the Quebec nation and the Canadian nation. I could also have added the first nations, which are also part of Canada. That said, the thing that I'm being criticized for is also found in the proposed motion.

For all these reasons, I can't support the proposals of my Liberal colleagues.

[The Chair, Conservative, Robert Gordon Kitchen]

Thank you, Ms. Vignola.

Again, so that everyone is clear, we're discussing the amendment to the amended motion.

We'll go to Mr. McCauley.