Government Operations Committee on Dec. 16th, 2021

[The Chair, Conservative, Robert Gordon Kitchen]

Thank you, Mr. Jowhari.

My understanding is that the clerk is arranging for that to be circulated as we speak. It will be sent out ASAP and hopefully everyone will have received that.

[The Clerk]

Mr. Chair, we have sent them out. We received five notices of motion from Madame Vignola. We've sent all five out, anticipating that if you want to move any of the five of them the text will be distributed to all members of the committee. It should be going out in a few seconds.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Robert Gordon Kitchen]

Is there anyone in the room who wishes to discuss the motion?

Mr. Kusmierczyk, is your hand up again?

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

Mr. Chair, I wonder if we can suspend for a couple of minutes for us to be able to review the motions that were brought forward. I had not been able to see those motions until now.

[The Chair, Conservative, Robert Gordon Kitchen]

Mr. Kusmierczyk, I think that's a great idea. Let's just suspend for five minutes so people can have a look at that.

We will reconvene in five minutes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Robert Gordon Kitchen]

Thank you, everybody. Hopefully you can all hear me now.

We will resume.

[The Clerk]

I think, Mr. Chair, you may have to select your microphone.

[The Chair, Conservative, Robert Gordon Kitchen]

I'm sorry. I was talking into the wrong earpiece. Hopefully you can hear me now.

Having looked at this, and although it does appear to be a little bit outside of the order of the House and it's non-binding, I think we will entertain some discussion on it.

I see that Mr. Housefather's hand is up.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

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.

[The Chair, Conservative, Robert Gordon Kitchen]

Thank you, Mr. Housefather.

Just to clarify, you're not making the amendment now. You're proposing that as we go on you might make that amendment at a later date. Is that correct?

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

That is correct. If people wish to proceed with debate on this today, then I will come back with amendments.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Robert Gordon Kitchen]

Thank you.

I have Mr. McCauley and then Mr. Paul-Hus. We'll then go to Mr. Kusmierczyk and Mr. Jowhari.

Mr. McCauley.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Thanks, Mr. Chair, and congratulations on your appointment again. It's wonderful to see that you've lost some weight as well. Well done.

I agree with Mr. Housefather's comment about the Quebec thing. Obviously Quebec is part of Canada—and a great part of Canada The motion should read “from Canada”.

Apart from that, I personally do support this motion. We've spent hundreds of millions sole-sourcing contracts to Medicom. Obviously there are masks and the government has paid for these masks. They've been produced for over a year now, so they are in the government system somewhere. Surely these ones should be used in the House and in government departments, rather than Chinese-made ones.

I do support the motion, with the amendment to say “Canada”.

Thanks.

[The Chair, Conservative, Robert Gordon Kitchen]

Thank you, Mr. McCauley.

Mr. Paul-Hus.

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I also support the motion, especially since, as we've seen in the media this week, there's a sort of emergency, perhaps even a public health emergency. The masks distributed in the House of Commons are falsely designated as approved by the United States Food and Drug Administration, or FDA. The approval was once in effect, but it has been withdrawn. We don't really know what we're putting on our faces when we wear these masks. We don't know whether the masks are good for our health. In contrast, here in Canada, we have excellent masks made by Canadian companies.

Regardless of the quantity available to the House of Commons and the Government of Canada for use in government buildings, I believe that these masks should be removed. The FDA stated that the masks aren't good for our health. This is also a public health issue.

I would be prepared to adopt the motion with the proposed amendment regarding Quebec, since we're all part of Canada. I would also add some text to the end of the motion about the person being addressed. I'll read the text that I would add:

That the chair of the committee write to the Speaker of the House of Commons to inform him of the situation and ask that measures be taken to resolve the situation before the date specified in the motion.

[The Chair, Conservative, Robert Gordon Kitchen]

Thank you, Mr. Paul-Hus.

Again, are you making that as an amendment at this point in time or as we discuss this further?

[The Clerk]

If you're moving the amendment now—

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Yes, I'm moving the motion with the two additional amendments. I can include the removal of the notion of Quebec and the addition of the sentence that I referred to. That's my amendment to the motion.

[The Clerk]

Mr. Chair, before proceeding, may I ask a question of Mr. Paul-Hus regarding his amendment?

[The Chair, Conservative, Robert Gordon Kitchen]

Yes. I'm going to ask if the clerk could clarify that for all members so that we know exactly how it reads.

[The Clerk]

Mr. Paul‑Hus, I received the text of the amendment that you wanted to add to the motion and that will soon be distributed to everyone. However, I want to clarify the part concerning Quebec and Canadian companies. Does this mean that you want to remove the words “Quebec and/or” and that the sentence would simply say “federal departments and agencies come from Canadian companies”?

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

That's right.

[The Clerk]

Thank you Mr. Chair for the opportunity to clarify this.

We will send the amendment out in a few moments. You can entertain debate on the amendment.

[The Chair, Conservative, Robert Gordon Kitchen]

Thank you.

We're just waiting for that amendment.

Mr. Kusmierczyk, I see your hand is up, but I suspect you're wanting to talk about the motion and not necessarily the amendment at this point in time, so I would just hold off on that.

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

That's correct.