Foreign Affairs Committee on March 23rd, 2021

[The Chair, Liberal, Sven Spengemann]

Good afternoon, colleagues. Welcome to the 23rd meeting of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development. This afternoon—

[Peter Fonseca, Liberal, Mississauga East—Cooksville, ON]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair. I'm not getting any interpretation.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sven Spengemann]

That's an important point. Let's see if we have interpretation. I'd be happy to start over from the beginning, if that was an issue for colleagues.

Madam Clerk, can we check on interpretation? We may have a more significant issue than a temporary lapse.

Colleagues, are we hearing interpretation now? Is it working?

It's working. I will start over.

Colleagues, welcome to the 23rd meeting of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development. This afternoon, we'll resume debate on Mr. Harris's motion, which was brought by Ms. McPherson, and on the amendment proposed by Ms. Sahota.

Colleagues, when we left this discussion at the last instance, I believe there was agreement that we preserve the speaking order from that moment. If that's the case, then the speaking order was Dr. Fry, Monsieur Bergeron, Mr. Fonseca and Mr. Oliphant.

With the committee's agreement, I propose that these be the first four speakers.

Colleagues, use the raise hand feature or a way of signalling to the clerk if you're attending in person and wish to intervene.

With the committee's consent to proceed in that fashion, we will now give the floor to Dr. Fry to continue this discussion.

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

Thank you very much, Chair.

[Technical difficulty—Editor] I really would like to reiterate once again that there are all sorts of statements out there saying that I have been filibustering. Filibustering is actually if I start talking about whether or not my cat could get a COVID-19 vaccine, or if I start talking about how my next-door neighbour is actually mowing her lawn—we are mowing are lawns right now in Vancouver—but she hasn't had a COVID-19 vaccine and I'm concerned about that. That's the kind of stuff that filibustering is.

My intervention on this debate is that I do have a huge problem with the motion as it stands. I'm speaking right now only as a physician. For me, I'm hearing from a lot of constituents who call my office every day confused about what's happening, what's going on, when they are going to get a vaccine and are they going to get a vaccine, and is vaccine A good, is vaccine B good, etc. The more that we put disinformation in a motion that is approved by this committee, the more it confuses people.

The issue here of people dying of COVID-19 is one that concerns me greatly. For me, public health is all about testing, tracing, tracking and surveillance. Those are the four 101s of public health. That's what I want people to do. I also want people to have a vaccine when it becomes available to them. I would rather they just get clear solid information so they can make decisions based on that and we don't confuse it with disinformation.

That is my major concern with this. I'm not concerned about anything else. I am concerned about the fact that (a) when this motion first came out, this motion was making statements that are no longer true, (b) we had all kinds of misinformation about Canada's access to the COVAX vaccine and (c) we had all kinds of misinformation about whether people are going to get a variant and if they get a variant, what they're supposed to do. It is confusing. This is the kind of confusion that can cost lives and can cause the spread of this COVID-19. We don't want the spread to continue. We want to start bringing it down.

What has further increased my concern since the last time I spoke to you is the fact that we are now seeing that in Paris they're in lockdown from new variants of COVID-19. That is what the spread is now. People aren't even sure if that is a new spread, a new pandemic, or whether it's just the COVID-19 variants, etc. I think we're seeing Italy in lockdown and Germany in lockdown. We're seeing a third wave caused by these virulent variants. I just think that this is scaring everyone. The anxiety is huge. As a physician, my first role is to care about the well-being of the patient and, for anxiety, give them proper information. It's at the heart of what we do when we speak to things.

I am not filibustering. I am really very concerned about this. I wanted to make sure that everybody understood what my concern was, which is at the heart of the debate: what my concern is about and why I am worried about it. I am not filibustering.

I think people need to talk about filibusters, the historic filibusters—and I won't go into historic filibusters—where people read from the phone book. That was a filibuster. I am just concerned about misinformation that can cause people (a) not to get vaccines and (b) not to know what is the right thing to do, not to know what the status of anything is.

I think that I would entertain really any kind of motion or amendment to the motion that would ensure it is clear, that we get clarity on some of these issues, whether it be to ask ministers to come and talk to us or anything that would clarify the situation. The concern for me is about clarity, disinformation, the anxiety of people in Canada, patients getting depressed and people not knowing what to do. That is what I was talking about.

I am not going to continue to belabour this. I'm hoping that everybody realizes that for me as a physician in the time of a pandemic a filibuster is not worth it. That's not what I'm trying to do at all. I really want to clarify. I really want to make sure people get the correct information, because people are confused. They don't understand. The first thing about anything to do with public health or medicine is informed decision-making by the patients, i.e., writ large, the public.

Having said that, I would be happy to find a way to entertain amendments from my colleagues that would clarify the situation, say what is happening and change some of the language to current language with regard to this issue. I'm happy to do that because for me, the idea is to get this thing done, move forward and make sure that patients and people are getting the right information.

Without protesting.... I don't think I'm filibustering at all. I have not said a single thing that's off topic. I have not said a single word to do with anything other than my concern about disinformation and getting clear information to people so they can make the best decisions for all of us and we can get rid of this thing.

I'm also concerned about the third wave of variants hitting Europe right now and the fact that we don't know if they're variants or if they're an absolutely new type of COVID virus.

There's one last piece of information that I want to update everybody on. There has been a leisure poll, and it shows, in fact, that if you look at vaccines per a hundred persons, Canada is seventh, just behind France. We're talking here by decimal points, not by massive amounts.

Again, as to information and disinformation, let's just get the facts right and let people decide what they think from those facts.

Thank you very much. I will cede my place, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sven Spengemann]

Dr. Fry, thank you very much for your remarks.

I'll give Mr. Bergeron the floor.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Montarville, QC]

Colleagues, I am very happy to finally have the opportunity to speak to this motion.

I would like to begin by saying that, throughout my entire political career, which has lasted over 26 years, I have been a member of the party in power for just 18 months. In other words, I am a past master of being in the opposition. I will say that, in the course of my lengthy political career, while I have engaged in systematic obstruction, I've never talked about my cat, my dog or mowing my lawn. Whenever I engaged in systematic obstruction, I always tried to keep my remarks relevant so that nobody could accuse me of straying from the subject.

With all due respect to Ms. Fry, I am quite capable of recognizing systematic obstruction regardless of what people are talking about. I'm not suggesting that Ms. Sahota's and Ms. Fry's remarks were not relevant, but they did seem to me to qualify as systematic obstruction. I was extremely surprised, not to mention disappointed, that anyone would engage in systematic obstruction with respect to this motion, because my governing party colleagues led me to believe they were seeking a compromise, so when they hog the mike to prevent anyone else from speaking, that's not really signalling that they want a compromise. I therefore concluded that they were indeed engaging in systematic obstruction. As I said, I was quite surprised and deeply disappointed. I was, as always, prepared to seek a compromise, as colleagues of mine who belong to both committees of which I am a member know. However, I have had to wait several meetings for my turn to speak to this matter.

I found it passing strange that one of my governing party colleagues would oppose the idea of reporting to the House on the grounds that it would waste time the House could dedicate to studying bills. It is not only strange, but ironic, that our governing party colleagues are wasting the committee's time telling us that we shouldn't waste time the House could be spending on bills.

It's even more astounding considering the fact that the governing party put the business of the House on hold for months after seeking prorogation. That was after the only bills that progressed in the House that spring or summer were bills to implement emergency measures. That meant we weren't able to legislate for months. We only began to do so this past fall.

That's why I found the argument that tabling reports in the House prevents the House from dedicating time to bills so inappropriate and ironic.

That said, I had the opportunity to tell some of my governing party colleagues that focusing on bills is not the exclusive province of the government. I truly believe that. It is every parliamentarian's responsibility. We're each responsible for ensuring adequate time to legislate. I certainly understand that.

It's also my understanding that, with unanimous consent, extending the House's sitting hours is totally doable. That is what we do for emergency debates.

While it seems to me that the opposition has increasingly been employing the tactic of transforming a simple motion into a report that could lead to a debate in the House, I also get the impression that the government is trying to avoid all debate in the House. I don't think either option is beneficial in a democracy. I don't think it's healthy to put all kinds of things before the House, tying up much of its time at the expense of bills, but I don't think it's healthy to avoid all debate in the House of Commons on potentially controversial topics. I think the House of Commons is the perfect place to debate controversial topics.

I have shared all this with my opposition and governing party colleagues. I've also discussed this with the Minister of International Development. That's why I was so surprised and disappointed by this turn of events. As I said, I thought our governing party colleagues were seeking compromise.

As I've already reiterated many times elsewhere, I don't think the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development is the place for partisan games, and that's for at least two reasons. For one thing, I think that all members of this committee share the same values. For another, I think it's always best, in foreign affairs, to present a united front and speak with one voice. To illustrate that point, I want to emphasize that this committee has never, since the October 21, 2019, election, been the scene of systematic obstruction other than on the part of government members on this controversial motion. That's why I was so disappointed by this turn of events. I truly believe, and I mean this most sincerely, that this committee is not a good place for partisan games.

I wouldn't want to be accused of doing exactly what I'm criticizing my colleagues for doing, which is systematic obstruction, so I'll wrap this up, but not before I propose a subamendment to Ms. Sahota's amendment.

First, I would replace “global circumstances” with “various factors”. As I've already said, I think there are circumstances and factors that aren't under the government's control. Nevertheless, as I've also said, I think other factors are the result of this government's bad decisions. Using the words “various factors” allows for individual interpretations of the language. Are we talking about exogenous factors, which are outside government control, or endogenous factors, which are caused by the government itself? We would be expecting people to use their brains to interpret the proposed language.

In addition, rather than just strike the last sentence of the motion, I would replace it with this: “And that the Minister of International Development be invited to discuss this issue with committee members.” That way, governing party colleagues would demonstrate that they are open to debate. This would give the minister a chance to come meet with committee members and have an in-depth conversation about this problematic and controversial issue. Also, we would not place undue demands on House time that is to be spent on bills. That is something that should be a priority for us all.

I wish we could have come up with another solution, such as not meeting at the same time as the House so that this debate could have happened, but, given that our committee discussion got off to a pretty bad start, we have to find another solution.

My suggestion is that we invite the Minister of International Development to come debate with us. I'll put it out there that I've talked to the minister, and she seems willing to meet with us.

I hope this part of the subamendment won't lead to a long drawn-out debate that would prevent us from making a decision about Mr. Harris's motion, which Ms. McPherson so capably and thoughtfully argued in favour of.

Thank you, colleagues.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sven Spengemann]

Thank you very much, Mr. Bergeron.

Colleagues, Monsieur Bergeron has introduced a subamendment to Ms. Sahota's motion. I'm advised that the clerk will email the text around so you can have that in front of you in writing, although Monsieur Bergeron read it and its content is not complex. With your agreement, let's preserve the list of speakers as it was originally—

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

Mr. Chair, on a point of order, I think it would be helpful for me.... I'm looking for Mr. Harris's motion and then Ms. Sahota's amendment and then Mr. Bergeron's amendment so I can see the three of them there just to see what is gone. I have a feeling that I really like Mr. Bergeron's subamendment, but I just want to back up to see what it does to Ms. Sahota's amendment, which I liked, and then what the ultimate effect is on the whole motion. I know I've lost it a little bit, because it's been about two months.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Montarville, QC]

Mr. Chair, may I read the amended version of the motion so everyone can get the gist of it?

[The Chair, Liberal, Sven Spengemann]

That would be nice, Mr. Bergeron. I just want everyone to know that the clerk sent the language of your subamendment to committee members.

She indicated to us that the language in red is Madam Sahota's original language, and the language in blue is that of Monsieur Bergeron. If colleagues want to check their emails as Monsieur Bergeron is rereading the amendments, that may be the most expeditious way to proceed and to make sure that everybody has the language in front of them.

Would you please read it, Mr. Bergeron?

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Montarville, QC]

While my colleagues consider the proposed amendments, I will read the text again as it would be amended:

That the committee recognizes that due to a variety of factors the government has faced delays in the supply of vaccines for Canadians through national manufacturing and international procurement, Canada is the only G7 country accessing vaccines through COVAX, an initiative intended to provide vaccines to high risk individuals in low and middle income countries.

The committee further recognizes that this failure by the government to secure domestic supply makes Canadians more vulnerable to dangerous variants and extends the detrimental global economic impacts of COVID-19 by delaying vaccinations to high-risk people in poor countries.

Finally, that the Minister of International Development be invited to discuss this issue with the Members of the Committee.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sven Spengemann]

Thank you very much, Mr. Bergeron.

By now colleagues may have the text in their email.

I would just like to seek the agreement of the committee to continue with the original speakers list. It now includes, from the original four, Mr. Fonseca and then Mr. Oliphant. Then we will transfer that speakers list over to discussion on the subamendment, followed by Dr. Fry, who has her hand raised as well on the subamendment.

With that, Mr. Fonseca, please go ahead.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Sorry, Mr. Chair, but on a point of order, it's not the usual practice to transfer a speaking list when you have a subamendment. I think we should deal with the subamendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sven Spengemann]

We did it last time with the consent of the committee. If there's disagreement on that, then we can open a new speakers list, Mr. Genuis. It's at the committee's will.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

I would just like to see us proceed to get this done, so if people don't need to speak to the subamendment, because it reflects agreement, then let's just proceed. I would request that people again indicate their interest in being on the speaking list if they still have things to say in light of the new development.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sven Spengemann]

Thank you, Mr. Genuis. It's a constructive comment.

Let's leave it to the discretion of the two members who were still on the original speakers list, who are Mr. Fonseca and Mr. Oliphant. If they have comments on the subamendment, let's have them come in, and then Dr. Fry is the next speaker.

From the floor, I'm in the hands of the clerk to signal who would intervene in person.

Mr. Fonseca, do you have comments on the subamendment?

[Peter Fonseca, Liberal, Mississauga East—Cooksville, ON]

Mr. Chair, I want to thank Monsieur Bergeron for his, as he says, finding compromise, finding this common ground, understanding that really our north star here is to provide the best information to our constituents and to be able to come forward. With his 26 years of experience and Dr. Fry with her 28 years of experience, we have over half a century.

I think what we have heard here is where there's a will, there's a way. I think we're all speaking to the same thing. We want to be able to bring in the minister, bring in experts, to provide clarity to what COVAX is all about. Who is it supporting? Who is it helping? What's Canada's role in COVAX? I'm proud of its role.

I think members are thinking we may bring it to a vote. I think we're finding some consensus here so I will leave it there, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sven Spengemann]

Thank you very much, Mr. Fonseca.

Mr. Oliphant and then Dr. Fry.

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

Always my concern with the speakers list not changing is I am in support of the subamendment; however, I have great difficulty still with one part of the motion as it stands.

My fear is if we use this method of me speaking to the subamendment, then I would also need to be speaking to the amended motion. It really follows very much on Mr. Bergeron's comments that I do believe we should find a non-partisan way of doing it, but there is a degree of polemic in this motion. When it says that the committee recognizes the failure by the government to secure domestic supply makes Canadians more vulnerable, that doesn't have anything to do with the motion as it stands and it is also an opinion that has not been verified by a committee study.

We're attempting to make a motion to report it to the House not based on evidence we have had before our committee, but on the opinion of a member, and I don't think that's the best way to move forward. There's a place for that, and that is to bring a motion to the House. There's a place for that, and that's to call for a take-note debate or an emergency debate. Those are bona fide parliamentary procedures that are there.

This is not that. The committee does not normally do this kind of work. Maybe a subcommittee does, but we don't do this. What this fails to do is also recognize the leadership of the Government of Canada with respect to the COVAX initiative around the world. What if Canada hadn't been out early and demonstrating that this initiative is designed to encourage wealthy and more developed countries to make commitments to COVAX with the knowledge that they could use that for their own domestic supply? It was a very important device that Canada took leadership on. When I read the motion as it stands, it doesn't have any of that nuance. It doesn't have any of that.

All of this is to say that it's giving you a little bit of a notice that I will be back to speak to this motion and I will want to deal with something in the middle of it. Meanwhile, I quite like Mr. Bergeron's subamendment and feel that I would support it, but I want to get back then to Ms. Sahota's amendment and then back to the original motion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sven Spengemann]

Thank you very much, Mr. Oliphant.

Next is Dr. Fry on the subamendment.

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

Thank you, Chair.

On the subamendment, I think I am in agreement with what Rob is saying. I have always felt that Mr. Bergeron has wanted us to try to come to compromises on a lot of things we do. I think that is what a committee like this is about. I'm in agreement that he's coming up with a compromise; however, I still feel there are some pieces in this that are, as Rob said, presumptive on the part of the mover, the person who brought in the motion originally. [Technical difficulty—Editor] evidence. For me, evidence is a very important thing. I like the idea that Mr. Bergeron is suggesting, that we bring in the minister. I might want to add Minister Anand to that as well so that we have the person who is procuring vaccines also able to give us some answers.

I think I like the intent of Mr. Bergeron's amendment. I like the idea that he's trying to find a way to do this. As I said before, I won't go back into what is a filibuster or what isn't; I just was not filibustering. I was really concerned about disinformation. There are a couple of pieces in this that are still not evidence-based statements. I would like to see those couple of pieces taken out.

I may like to suggest, if Mr. Bergeron is interested, that we add Minister Anand to the list of ministers appearing before us. Clarity, for me, is what the name of the game should be about.

That's about it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sven Spengemann]

Dr. Fry, thank you very much.

It is on the floor as a subamendment and can't be amended further. Like Mr. Oliphant, you're free to bring points once we're back on Ms. Sahota's amendment.

Are there any other points on the subamendment as proposed by Mr. Bergeron?

If there is no further debate, I would propose that we put Mr. Bergeron's subamendment to a vote. If we have unanimous consent on the subamendment, we could proceed in that fashion. Is there anybody opposed?

(Subamendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

We are now procedurally back on the amendment as proposed by Ms. Sahota. We are open for a new speakers list. By virtue of raising hands virtually or signalling to our clerk in the committee room—

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Montarville, QC]

Mr. Chair, I have a point of order.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sven Spengemann]

The floor is yours, Mr. Bergeron.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Montarville, QC]

Doesn't passing the subamendment automatically cancel out Ms. Sahota's amendment?