Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Given that it's my first opportunity to speak, I would like to say how honoured I am to be on this committee with all of you and to be vice-chair. I very much look forward to working with colleagues of all parties and have been encouraged so far by the collaborative discussions we've had. I hope that will continue and certainly set the tone for the weeks and months to come.
With that, I'd like to move an amendment to the Liberal motion. Given that it's fairly similar, I'll indicate where I'm amending it by raising my hand so folks know. In the past, I've found that's easier. It would read as follows, as amended: “That pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), given the imperative for Canada's self-reliance in national defence and security, and the significant level of investment announced, the committee study the opportunity to use a defence industrial strategy to regenerate and further develop sovereign capabilities of Canada's industrial ecosystem and procurement opportunities for Canadian businesses. This includes areas such as aerospace, digital technologies, cyber security, vehicle and arms manufacturing, heavy industry, scientific research, advanced materials, and the bioeconomy; that the committee invite ministers and representatives from the Department of National Defence and the Department of Innovation, Science and Economic Development to appear on this study; that the committee conduct this study concurrently with a study on Canada's outflow of capital investment and productivity decline for a minimum of six (6) meetings each, should such a study be undertaken by this committee; and that the committee report its findings to the House.”
That is my amendment as moved.
Mr. Chair, I would say two things.
The first amendment is to invite ministers to this study. Given that Canada is currently without a defence industrial policy, at least to the magnitude that I believe Mr. Bardeesy and the Liberals would like to see it brought forward, this would be quite a significant advancement in some ways, depending on what the content of the defence policy in this country is. I know that the minister has been quite vocal about her advocacy for the defence industry in Canada. We've seen that quite a bit on her social media. I would imagine that she would welcome the opportunity to come to speak to that and answer important questions. I would also say that without the testimony of the Minister of Industry and the Minister of National Defence, I feel that the report, in the end, would be lacking the content required to bring the prestige that I think is needed for a report recommending such a change in industrial defence policy, or to introduce it.
Then, on the second part, certainly we've had private discussions, and I think everyone is keen, as I said, to work collaboratively. That means that we have an air of compromise as well: Everybody gives a little and everybody gets a little. I think we've established that a little bit behind the scenes with writing our motions. Everyone seems to have adjusted them a bit from their original format, which I greatly appreciate. It is not always the case on committees.
That being said, the issue, I believe.... As we know, we have a motion that we want to bring forward. I know the Bloc has a motion that they'd like to bring forward. I think the sticking issue would not be our support for this motion or a motion of the Bloc, but just the order in which we would like to ensure they are conducted. Of course, Liberals would like theirs first. We would like ours first. A reasonable compromise would be—I've done this and had success in past committees—that we have the studies concurrently, as I mentioned in the amendment: that one goes one day, perhaps on Monday, and the other goes on Wednesday, that we have an equal number of meetings and that it continues for six weeks. Then it's fair. It's a compromise on both sides and everybody wins a little.
That is my proposal, Mr. Chair, with my amendment. I look forward to hearing feedback from members.
Thank you.