Foreign Affairs Committee on Feb. 25th, 2021

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

Right. Thank you, Mr. Genuis. I'm glad I didn't go into detail with this. Thanks for the heads-up. I will try my best to be more careful. I don't want to let the cat out of the bag about the report.

Going back to the amendment to Mr. Harris's motion, the amendment that I proposed was basically a rewording of the first sentence so that the motion would read, “That the committee recognizes that, due to global circumstances, the government has faced delays in the supply of vaccines for Canadians through national manufacturing and international procurement”. The rest of it goes on as is and then I have removed the final sentence of the motion.

If everyone has the motion in front of them, hopefully they have the amendment as well. The last sentence, which is removed, is, “Finally, that the committee report this motion to the House.”

Maybe I'll start with “Finally, that the committee report this motion to the House”. The reason I proposed these changes to Mr. Harris's motion is that I'm really opposed to our reporting every comment or feedback we get to the House in this way without having done some thorough study or investigation of it. The committee's work is to actually do some work on a matter and then report that to the House, as we have been doing in the study that we currently have before us. It's not to make a statement and then just send it to the House.

A lot of work needs to be done on this issue. I said last time that I appreciate the NDP's sentiments on this, but what I don't appreciate is our just blocking up House time, without doing the work that this committee should be doing. That is essentially what we're seeing. In many committees, we're seeing motions just being sent to the House so that they can be concurred in and so that we can spend four hours of House time and delay a lot of important legislation.

I want to make sure that all the members in this committee are basically aware of what the consequences of continuing to go down this road could be. The consequences we're currently going through right now are that Bill C-14 has not been given the due time it needs to move forward. Bill C-14 is the fall economic statement. It is important for Canadians. It's important in the context of this pandemic.

Just as the sentiment of this motion about vaccines going to poor or middle-income countries...I absolutely agree that this pandemic should be first and foremost on our minds as a government, and it is. Our delaying support to Canadians and delaying legislation in the House, however, is not what is going to help Canadians or developing countries.

Another piece of legislation that's in the House, which I think is important for the safety of Canadians, is Bill C-19, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act. That piece of legislation, I think, has not had any time in the House—

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sven Spengemann]

We have a point of order.

Ms. McPherson.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

I'm sorry to interrupt the member, but we have very limited time, and I don't know that listing all of the bills that have to come forward to the House is actually how we want to move forward on this. We have not had sufficient time to talk about the actual meat of this motion yet, despite the fact that I tabled it some time ago, so unless the member is going to actually talk about this motion, not, in fact, all of the bills coming forward in the House.... I would prefer that we stick to this motion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sven Spengemann]

Ms. McPherson, I believe she was addressing consequences of the motion, so I will allow this thought to be expressed. I think it is part of the consequences of what would happen if we go down this path.

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sven Spengemann]

Yes, Dr. Fry. Is it on the same point of order?

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

No, I would like to suggest that the freedom of a member of this committee to discuss and debate an issue of importance to this committee should not be curtailed by another member. The tradition of committees is that we discuss until we are happy, as we did with our report until we were happy with the report, until we all believed that we could feel safe in putting that out because our names are on it.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

As long as we were talking about the report.

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

She is speaking about the report, Mr. Chair, so I do think that that was not a point of order, as you so rightly pointed out. I wanted to raise my voice to support you, as the chair, in deciding that this is not a valid point of order.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sven Spengemann]

I believe Ms. McPherson was getting to the question of relevance. Your point was a broader one, which is the privilege of the member to speak unrestrained at committee, and that point is also important. I thank you both for your points of order.

I'll pass the floor back to Ms. Sahota, unless there are additional comments on this point of order.

[Rob Oliphant, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

I would add to that point of order that I would hope the chair would caution all members to make sure that points of order are points of order. Yes, you can call on relevance, but you can't call on whether or not there are motivations behind the member's speech. That is up to the member. That's a long-standing tradition.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sven Spengemann]

Thank you, Mr. Oliphant.

Are there any other points on this point of order? Okay.

Ms. Sahota, we will give the floor back to you.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

Thank you.

I appreciate the comments that all my colleagues have made. I do take some exception to Ms. McPherson trying to get me back on track. I think I'm completely on track. I think it's important that I'm speaking to my amendment. My amendment is to remove the last sentence. Part of my amendment is to remove the last sentence of the NDP motion, and I think it is important, if we do get to a vote on my amendment or essentially the motion unamended or amended, that we need to understand what the impacts are.

I want to make it very clear so that we all have a good understanding before we vote on these things. Also, I even want to, perhaps through the discussion that we're going to have on this, fully understand where the NDP or other parties that wish to support the original amendment were going with this and what the intention really is. Is the intention for us to better understand the Covax initiative? Is it to better understand how Canada can play a better role in providing vaccines not only to Canadians but also in supporting other countries? Is that essentially what we're trying to achieve or are we trying to achieve something else?

I would argue that at the end of the day, that last sentence is really there to try to achieve something else. That's happening not just in this committee. It's happening in many committees. We're seeing many things being done so that all of the House time is blocked up with opposition motions and concurrence motions. We're even seeing—we just saw here on Tuesday.... Actually, I won't mention that part, but we are seeing in other committees as well attempts to bring whatever issue it is, reports and such, to the House as quickly as possible so that they can be concurred in, so that there can be debate on those issues in the House. I want us to fully understand what's at stake here.

I know, to Ms. McPherson and to her party, that Bill C-15 is incredibly important. Bill C-15 is an act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. UNDRIP is something that one of her esteemed colleagues from the NDP has worked very hard on to make sure that the government would move on this piece of legislation so that we could recognize those rights within our own country. It's very important to me, but seeing how things are evolving, I really hope that we get this work done in this Parliament.

If we continue to send all the work that we're supposed to do in committees to the House, then we're not going to get anywhere with legislation at all. Why are we trying to get rid of work that we should rightfully be doing in this committee as members? We should be doing our job. We should be bringing, perhaps, the minister in to try to figure out how this program of Covax was put together, what it was intended for. We could be bringing in other witnesses if those proposals are on the table. But all I'm seeing in this original motion is an attempt to make some value judgements and to send this to the House so it can block up legislation. That's what I'm seeing.

That's why I'm trying to get to a point where maybe we can come up with a solution that would better serve the sentiments behind—or at least what I hope are the true sentiments behind—this motion, the original motion, to make sure that we're doing our role as a leader.

Some of the language I haven't even attempted to amend, really, because I was trying to do the least possible amount of amendment to the original motion so that I wouldn't offend the original motion's intent. There's definitely language beyond that, with which I'm not happy, but I let it go. I'm trying to do the bare minimum so that we can still move on and do some important work and look into the whole Covax initiative.

That's why I haven't removed the fact that Covax was an initiative that was intended to provide vaccines to high-risk individuals in low- and middle-income countries.

With regard to the intent of Covax's program and the initiative, I think there's a failure to completely understand what the intent of that program is. It is to provide equitable access. That doesn't say it's to deny any developed country access to Covax. It is to ensure that all countries that are investing in and supplementing this program could also benefit from this program. It is an equal opportunity program. I'm really proud that Canada is a leader in the investments that it's made into Covax.

Another issue which I think is important is.... God forbid, I don't want this to happen, and I don't think most members that sit on my other committee really would like this to happen, but when I was interrupted before, I was about to say that we have Bill C-19 also in the House. That is election legislation. It is something that the elections commissioner has asked us to pass so that they can prepare if there were to be an election in this pandemic. The government doesn't control that necessarily. Things can happen. Oftentimes, you know, I'm getting to the point that—

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

I have a point of order again, Mr. Chair.

Do you still deem this relevant?

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

[Technical difficulty—Editor] House, making sure—

[The Chair, Liberal, Sven Spengemann]

One second, Ms. Sahota.

Ms. McPherson, what is your point of order?

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Is this relevant? Do you find that this is relevant to this motion?

[The Chair, Liberal, Sven Spengemann]

I believe it is, yes.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Okay.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sven Spengemann]

Ms. Sahota, go ahead, please.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I haven't been a member of another minority parliament, but what I have been told by others who have been members of minority parliaments is that things can occur, especially when we get to a point where there is a lot of disagreement, where legislation is essentially no longer able to move through the House and you have a log jam basically. No work is getting done. Canadians have sent us here to do work, to pass important legislation, for committees to work.

Oftentimes we hear this ideal notion that minority parliaments are wonderful because there is so much co-operation and consensus building. I'm hoping that we can build some consensus at this committee today and work together to make sure that the House has time to do the important work that is needed for Canadians. If we don't go down that path of working together and we have that log jam, it is possible we could end up having an election. It's possible that we could end up getting to a place where no one is willing to work together. I would hate to see that happen, but I would really hate to see that happen before Bill C-19 passes.

Without having election legislation passed, and without it getting past second reading, getting to its committee so that the committee can do important work on that legislation and bring forward amendments and then send it back to the House to go through the third reading stage, we won't be able to give the elections commissioner the important powers that are needed to make sure that an election would be run in the safest way possible for Canadians.

I feel it is our responsibility to make sure that we are doing the right thing for Canadians at the end of the day. That is very important.

We have in the House as well Bill C-12, an act respecting transparency and accountability in Canada's efforts to achieve net zero greenhouse gas emissions by the year 2050. I think that's a very important piece of legislation as well, and I'm hoping that the NDP and the Green Party are going to be very supportive of that legislation, and who knows, maybe the Conservatives will be as well. You just never know.

I'm eager to see all of that work get done in the House so I can see for myself what ends up happening, but right now what's happening is nothing, absolutely nothing. That is why I come back to why it's important for us to revisit this motion and to understand the repercussions it would have in the House if we were to pass it as is. I think that would be a complete failure of this committee to do its work.

That was some of the language I wanted changed in the original motion. I don't think that the government's work in procuring vaccines for Canadians can be described as it is. I sincerely believe—and I know Canadians do too, and I know at the very least that my colleagues will back me on this—that we are currently seeing vaccines come into our country, and we're going to continue to see vaccines flow into Canada even more quickly than what might be doable by the provinces to roll them out, but I'm very optimistic. I think Canadians are too. I'm starting to hear a lot of relief on that end from my constituents. I know they are very concerned. Their number one concern is getting vaccines to our seniors, to immunocompromised people, to those who work at the front line.

When we come back to Covax, in terms of the amount of vaccine that Canada would be receiving through Covax, I believe it would be somewhere in the area of 1.9 million doses by the end of June. The majority of doses that we are currently receiving are through Moderna. We are receiving doses through AstraZeneca. We're receiving Pfizer doses, of course. Pfizer is the largest number that we're receiving.

I know there might be some delays in the Covax shipments to developed countries, but I was happy to hear that—

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Montarville, QC]

On a point of order, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sven Spengemann]

Yes, Mr. Bergeron.

Go ahead, please.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Montarville, QC]

I am sorry to interrupt my colleague, but I see that almost all our Liberal colleagues have raised their hands.

Are we systematically filibustering to prevent this motion from being adopted by the end of the hour?

Ms. Sahota has already been speaking for 25 minutes and she doesn't seem to have finished. I have asked for the floor, but I get the impression that they do not intend to let us speak on the subject.

So, if they're trying to prevent the motion from passing by the end of the day, we could just adjourn the meeting and go home.

I find what I am witnessing at the moment extremely deplorable. It seems to me that government members are systematically filibustering to prevent the adoption of this motion, amended or not. Yet, having spoken with Ms. McPherson and with the minister, I came here in a spirit of compromise, and I find that few of my colleagues are acting in the same spirit. At least not many on the government side.

I'm a bit exasperated by what's going on right now. Let me point that out to you, Mr. Chair.