Evidence of meeting #20 for Foreign Affairs and International Development in the 43rd Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was point.
A video is available from Parliament.
5:05 p.m.
The Clerk
—the committee can proceed to some things on unanimous consent, but it is a freedom with limitations. You cannot overturn the Standing Orders, for example, and you cannot overturn higher procedural authorities.
In this particular case, once you had moved your point of order and gotten the attention of the chair, and the chair gave you the floor legitimately, then you could seek unanimous consent. In the House, unanimous consent is really used to move along procedure, such as unanimous consent being sought for concurrence in committee reports of PROC, or for membership changes, for example. Those are the real reasons unanimous consent is generally used. In committee it can be used the same way. In this case, I would suggest that it was, but it did not pass.
5:05 p.m.
Conservative
5:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sven Spengemann
That's helpful, Madam Clerk. Thank you very much.
The floor reverts to Ms. Sahota.
5:05 p.m.
Liberal
Ruby Sahota Liberal Brampton North, ON
Okay. Now to remember where I left off....
That was helpful, though. Every time you learn a little bit more about procedure, it updates and refreshes your memory or your knowledge.
I think I was at the point I wanted to make about the initial reason for the WHO having initiated and coordinated—
5:05 p.m.
Liberal
5:05 p.m.
Liberal
Rob Oliphant Liberal Don Valley West, ON
I was trying to do that, but my microphone was up on my head.
I just want it on the record that I do not think it is appropriate to use a point of order to make what was a de facto motion. I don't want it to become—
5:05 p.m.
Conservative
5:05 p.m.
Liberal
Rob Oliphant Liberal Don Valley West, ON
—the standard of this committee.
I'm not making a motion. I'm wanting to make it very clear—
5:05 p.m.
Conservative
5:05 p.m.
Liberal
Hedy Fry Liberal Vancouver Centre, BC
Will you just let somebody speak, Mr. Genuis, when they're speaking?
5:05 p.m.
Conservative
5:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sven Spengemann
Colleagues, let's please maintain order.
Mr. Oliphant has the floor.
5:05 p.m.
Liberal
Rob Oliphant Liberal Don Valley West, ON
It is a point of order. I am not going to challenge the chair on this. However, I want to make it very clear, at least in the record of the committee, that I am saying that it is not appropriate for the chair to be giving the floor to someone in the midst of someone's speech and who then uses it to make a de facto motion and request unanimous consent.
I do believe the clerk was right by saying that once he had the floor, he could actually make a motion, and he asked then if there was unanimous consent to do it. However, the problem was prior to that, when the floor was yielded to him when it wasn't truly a point of order. I just want to make sure we don't go down that road, because we would then be outside the Standing Orders. You can only make a motion when you duly have the floor, which we have decided by convention on this committee is by the order on the speakers list kept jointly by the chair and the clerk.
I really think that was a very difficult moment, and I think it needs to be noted in our minutes.
5:10 p.m.
Conservative
5:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sven Spengemann
Mr. Oliphant, thank you. That confirms the advice of the clerk.
Is there another point of order?
February 25th, 2021 / 5:10 p.m.
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
I have a point of order on that.
Mr. Chair, Mr. Oliphant's comments do not confirm the advice of the clerk, because what the clerk said was that it is a reasonable practice within the existing framework of the Standing Orders for unanimous consent motions to be proposed which are designed to facilitate or expedite the work of the committee, and that is what I was seeking to do. I was trying to propose, by unanimous consent, a procedure that would allow us to actually get through the work we need to get done. There were members on the government side who rejected that unanimous consent motion.
That's fine. That's their right, but it is very common, including during filibuster scenarios, as happened at PROC during a filibuster scenario, where unanimous consent was sought to do things procedurally to move things along or to create certain accommodations. For instance, in the middle of a speech, you can say “unanimous consent to suspend” or “unanimous consent to allow someone else to intervene”.
The use of unanimous consent for procedural abridgement is very common and is necessary for a well-functioning committee. If one person doesn't like it, they can always simply say no to that point of unanimous consent, but it is normal and proper, and I'm trying to propose a path forward. If members don't like that path forward, if they don't want to move on from this debate to create time for something else to be done, that's fine. They can say no to unanimous consent, but this is a normal procedure, and that has been confirmed by the clerk's advice.
5:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sven Spengemann
Mr. Genuis, thank you for that.
I just want to circle back one more time to the clerk, because the way I understood it was that the desire or the solicitation of unanimous consent is not properly sought on a point of order, which is really just to clarify a breach of the Standing Orders with reference to a particular standing order that the member, in her or his perception, believes has been broken.
Madam Clerk, how do members seek, and at what point can they seek, the unanimous consent of the committee for procedural or other reasons?
5:10 p.m.
The Clerk
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
On a point of order, you may not move a motion, including a motion for unanimous consent.
In this particular case, Mr. Genuis moved his point of order, and then you did indicate that you were going to give him the floor. At that point, he had the floor legitimately. Usually, in the normal course of things, members will gain the floor legitimately through their turn on the speaking list or if the chair gives them the floor.
5:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sven Spengemann
Thank you very much, Madam Clerk. That is helpful.
Ms. Sahota, we'll go back to you.
5:10 p.m.
Liberal
Ruby Sahota Liberal Brampton North, ON
Thank you. I appreciate that.
I'd like to reflect a little on that as well. I'm thinking back to perhaps something I said may have instigated some of this, and that was for us to work together to come up with a solution, a compromise, and perhaps Mr. Genuis was trying to jump the gun a little to try to get to that consensus. So I give him the benefit of the doubt that maybe he wasn't trying to do something tricky, but I do feel he was giving up my position on the floor maybe to get to a better place. He can definitely raise his hand if he hasn't done so, and Ms. McPherson is next as well, so they will definitely have their time to propose different compromises that perhaps would be feasible to move this committee in a positive direction and get us working on something that will help Canadians and people around the world.
Turning to the purpose of Covax, I think the original motion fails to understand the real purpose behind this initiative. Covax was a global vaccine-sharing initiative that a whole bunch of countries joined. The goal of this initiative was to accelerate the development and manufacturing of COVID-19 vaccines. This was to guarantee fair and equitable access for every country in the world.
It was not at the expense of the investing countries to not be able to get any vaccines out of this initiative or out of the vaccines that are manufactured. Nowhere did it say that wealthy countries are to invest without receiving anything in return. It was quite the opposite. The whole purpose of this initiative was so that the countries that invested were also to receive some benefit out of this program. By doing so, my belief is it encourages more countries to enter into this program, which helps supplement vaccines for the developing world and to other countries as well.
I think at some point I mentioned we just heard an announcement that Ghana received 600,000 vaccines through Covax just the other day. There might be some delays there as well, but many countries are seeing delays when it comes to vaccines. We've seen delays for various reasons that are outside our control because of the ramping up of manufacturing, the changes to lines and all of that. But, it is still good news that we are starting to see these vaccines roll out from Covax. I think in large part it's good that Canada has played a large role in that being possible today.
Our initial investment in September—and there has been more since then—was for $440 million. Half of this investment was going to secure doses for Canadians and the other half was going toward helping other countries. Right there you know that is the agreement Canada had entered into. As I said at the beginning, I understand the sentiments and the emotions that may take us away from what we think this program was all about and what it actually was all about.
I also want to mention, as I have mentioned before, I'm sure many of my colleagues might be aware that other countries such as Singapore, New Zealand and many others on that growing list have also secured vaccines through this program, just like Canada.
We've also heard the minister. There have been a lot of questions in the House already on this issue. The ministers are there at question period to answer questions on these issues.
However, I understand that my colleagues may want to get more in-depth answers on this issue so that we can understand this program better. I am of the mindset that it would be a great idea. I think it would be great to have the minister come and explain this program to us a little bit better.
The minister has been explaining in the media, and Minister Gould has been explaining in question period. I know that some of the opposition members in this committee as well have posed questions on various platforms, and question period is always there. It's a part of our House proceedings and our House time to raise these important issues.
Otherwise, I think it's important for us to recognize that the committee should be doing that work, and it should not be taking over legislative time to debate this issue.
I want to talk a bit about the terms and conditions that Gavi had outlined for participants in Covax. The terms and conditions themselves stated: “These 'Terms and Conditions' set out the basis on which [self-financing economies] will participate in the COVID-19 Vaccine Global Access Facility” and that “all economies are invited to participate, and all participating economies will benefit by securing access to vaccine supply made available through the Facility.”
This is actually in the terms and conditions of the agreement that was signed by the government. It goes on to state:
Economies of all financial means can participate with the degree of support for the AMC Group Participants determined by the resources raised by the COVAX AMC. ...The world will need to work together to overcome the pandemic, and the Facility will work best with as many economies as possible committing to this collaborative global effort. Everyone contributes so that everyone can benefit. This principle will be realised through clear political and financial commitments.
When we see that this is a part of the terms and conditions laid out at the onset, then I would argue that the motion we're trying to pass at this committee is really false. It's a false notion. It's a false narrative and it's a very partisan narrative that is trying to be spun against the best interests of, I would argue, Canadians, and against the best interests of people around the world as well.
This is a really big issue right now. Vaccines for Canadians and for people around the world are a big issue, and Canada has stepped forward to make sure that Canadians are served well, but not just Canadians, that those around the world will also benefit. That's very important for us to make sure that we remember and that we don't continue to raise this false narrative and worry people that somehow Canada is gobbling up all the vaccines out of this program. That's absolutely false.
It's absolutely false, and, like I said, the vaccines that Canada has secured through this program are not even going to be received by Canadians, by Canada, until the end of June. This issue right now I think is something that we should explore in our committee by bringing the minister in and by having other witnesses in order to see perhaps what the actual impacts and effects are.
I would gather, as vaccine manufacturing is ramping up—and we're seeing it right before our eyes right now, and we're going to see it in the weeks to come as well—that since Canada has secured so many doses of vaccines and we will have our population, all of those who desire to be vaccinated, vaccinated by the end of September, all of the vaccines that are going to be in surplus will surely be going back to countries that need them the most.
Not only what we've contributed into Covax, to make sure we're accelerating and increasing the capacity that they have in this initiative, but also the other vaccines we've secured outside of Covax are going to be going towards aid. That's really important. Canada is going to be giving back and already has been paying it forward in a really big way.
I think that should be recognized, and I don't think Canadians should be tricked into believing this false narrative that somehow Canada is not stepping up, that it's not fulfilling its international role and duty. I just don't think that is fair.
Minister Gould has also been very clear on this. In answer to the questions that were asked to her at committee, she did say that Covax was intentionally set up to have wealthy countries contribute both to procuring vaccines and to growing purchasing power, so they could subsidize vaccines for low-income countries while working for equitable access.
She said that Canada is the second-largest contributor to the Covax AMC, and we're proud of that. It's historic that we've been able to create and to collaborate with other countries and to be a part of such a fantastic initiative that is going to help so many people around the world. I think we should be proud that we've helped set up this historic global mechanism.
Moving on from those points, if I don't have everyone convinced that this is an interesting issue and that we should look at it in the House—I mean in committee—sorry—and not in the House. Absolutely, that is not what my intention is. I don't think we're going to achieve anything in the House on this issue, because all that's going to happen in the House is that members are going to get up and give speeches on this issue, and then what? Conservative members will give their speeches. They'll have their allotted time, and we'll have three hours on the issue, let's say, and then we'll have a vote. The vote will be to—what, to make a statement, to make a declaration of some sort? I think what we can do on this committee goes far beyond that.
I just don't think that vaccines and the health of Canadians and the health of people around the world should be politicized in this way. I can definitely say, and I'm sure that many members sitting around this virtual committee table today can attest to the fact, that at the beginning of this pandemic, and I would say also well into this pandemic, what Canadians have been most proud of has been our parties working together for the benefit of Canadians.
I've heard many times from my constituents that they like to see cross-party collaboration. They like to see us working together. They like to see the different levels of government working together.
Absolutely, Peter, that's exactly what they like to see. They like to see us hand in hand, working hard for Canadians.
This reeks a little bit of scoring political points and partisanship. That's what this looks like to me. That's my personal opinion. I do think there is a reason that the last sentence was added, and I don't think it was added for any genuine purpose. I think it was added for the reason I just stated. It's to gain some political points, unnecessary ones, really, because what we could be doing is talking about....
I think in committees is where we do the most collaborative work. I always tell young people that, when I am mentoring them, and they talk to me and come to seek advice as to whether they should get into politics. They think it's such an ugly place. They talk about the ugliness they see in question period. I tell them a lot of work goes on behind the scenes, that there's a lot of camaraderie and a lot of friendships develop, that there's a lot of co-operation, even across parties and a lot of that work happens at committees.
People are not as tuned in to committees. There might be some people watching us today since we're public. I'd like to thank all the people who are watching the foreign affairs committee today. However, I'm also not naive. I don't think there are that many people who have the time to tune in to committee work, but a lot of people do see the little clips in question period. They start thinking that this is what it's all about, the fighting and the one-sided questions, and answers, for that matter.
I don't think so. I think there are so many places they don't get to see and get an in-depth look at because they're busy working. They're busy trying to make ends meet. We know they're extremely busy in this pandemic. If they are having to isolate and stay home, they're worried. They have something else on their minds, not figuring out if the House of Commons will have a three-hour debate on Covax or if we can work together in this committee. Can we come up with a compromise where we can maybe see how programs like this, more initiatives could be created on how we can improve the House of Canadians and those around the world?
I'm really enjoying the current study we're doing; however, it's extremely heavy. To Ms. McPherson's credit, it takes somebody with a really big heart to do the work she's done in aid and development. It also leaves an emotional impact. I have a lot of respect for all my colleagues for the hard work they do.
In conclusion, I want to get to a point where we can start doing something really interesting in this committee—
5:30 p.m.
Conservative
