Foreign Affairs Committee on March 23rd, 2021

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

There are some pieces in the amendment that concern me because, as we are speaking to clarity here, I do not agree that.... Well, I think that if you want to talk about us recognizing the leadership of the government, etc., that becomes a little partisan. I can see people not wanting to read that.

What I would like to speak to is the fact that we are attributing the ability of low- and middle-income countries to get vaccines and the ability of international procurement...that it is linked to COVID variants, and it isn't. We do know that some of the vaccines that are available now do not deal with some of the variants. Some of them do not deal with the South African variant and some of them do not deal with the Brazil variant. The current vaccines we have are not necessarily going to deal with the variants, so that's one thing that we can't say, because it isn't based in evidence. I just wanted to say that it is a misleading statement to say that it does.

I agree, however, with the fact that what Mr. Oliphant wants is clarity. I also agree with the fact that what we want to do is to ensure there is factual data here. As I said before, the only reason I didn't like Mr. Oliphant's amendment is that it continues to link us having a supply of vaccinations, domestic and international, to being able to stop variants, and it isn't so in terms of evidence. I just wanted to make sure that we didn't put in something that is actually not based on evidence. We know that the Brazil variant and the South African variant are still out there and we're not sure what vaccines are working against them accurately or not.

I mean, this is moving so fast that nobody has a chance to see what's going on. I know that countries are locking down because they're concerned about the rise in variants, but it doesn't mean that the current vaccines that are out there are going to deal with those variants. I want to make that clear. It does not mean that the current vaccines that are out there are able to deal with some of the variants. They may be able to deal with a few, but not all, so I don't want us to put language in there that says they will. I just wanted to make sure that is clear.

For me, this whole issue is about clarity, about facts and about evidence-based information. I know that this is Mr. Oliphant's bottom line as well: to make sure that we're clear. I would prefer that we have no—what can I say—partisan language in this, because it just leads us down to arguing and to arguing about partisanship. I like the idea that when Mr. Bergeron spoke he spoke to non-partisanship.

What we really want to know is what's going on. How did we procure? How did we not procure? Are there any new vaccines out there that are dealing with variants? We want to hear that information, so why don't we just bring in the Minister of International Development? I also want to say—again, for the sake of accuracy and factual data—let's bring in the Minister of Public Services and Procurement, because she's a procurer. She knows what's out there. She has been dealing with vaccine manufacturers. She knows what's going on.

Let's bring in just those two. I don't want a variety of ministers coming in. Let's have one hour for one and one hour for another. Let's get some answers so that we can actually then have a very good discussion and something that goes out there to the public and is factual and evidence based. That's my objective.

As I said, the only thing I didn't like about Mr. Oliphant's amendment was that it is continuing to link the idea that if we had more domestic supply and if we had more international supply we would be able to deal with the variants, and that is not really true.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sven Spengemann]

Thank you very much, Dr. Fry.

Here's what I propose, colleagues. It's 4:35. Again, I don't want to be heavy on the clock because it's the collective will of the committee that's going to drive the agenda, but if we can get the round of interventions currently on the slate and see if we can take this amendment somewhere this afternoon.... If it looks like we need more discussion time, I would suggest that we transition to committee business, because I do realize that there are a number of motions that colleagues want to bring there and a couple of points of business that are important in terms of the way forward on the other studies that we're engaged in.

With that in mind, I want to continue to go through the list as it's currently before me. I have Mr. Fonseca, Ms. Saks, Monsieur Bergeron, Ms. McPherson and Mr. Oliphant.

Mr. Fonseca is next.

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

Thank you, Chair.

Like I wanted to support Monsieur Bergeron, I will support his amendment and also Mr. Oliphant, and to hear from Dr. Fry and what she had to say in terms of clarity in terms of public health.... What was very poignant was just how fast this is moving. Every day things change.

It's evolving at such a quick pace that we've seen at one point where we were scrambling a little bit to get the vaccines. Now by the end of this week, over eight million vaccines will have come into Canada. By the end of June, we have 36.5 million vaccines coming into Canada. From COVAX , I believe it's 1.9 million vaccines that we said we would procure, but on COVAX, and as Mr. Oliphant was saying on the leadership role, thinking back to the beginnings of COVAX, from the onset, we as Canada should be very proud that putting in $440 million, by being the leader, being number one in COVAX.... That leadership has brought others forward, and that's what we would like to hear from the minister, from experts and from those who understand COVAX and what it's able to do and to show that, through Canada's leadership, we've been able to get billions of dollars of investments now within COVAX. More and more countries every day are coming online.

Speaking about the same message that our Prime Minister has said, we need the whole world vaccinated. To protect us, we need everybody protected. That's the only way it will work, and to know that we've been able to procure the most vaccines per capita of anywhere else in the world allows us.... As I've said, I spoke to those numbers, how many vaccines we'd have here by June. We will have many. We will be able to share those vaccines with COVAX, with others, to be able to ensure that what we all are looking at is to get everybody, as many people as possible, vaccinated throughout the world as quickly as possible.

I think Canada has taken the right approach. When it comes to the manufacturing of vaccines, we can't go back to the 1980s under the Mulroney times or whoever was in government at that time who decided that we no longer needed to manufacture vaccines, but what we did do, as soon as the pandemic was announced by the WHO, was that, within 12 days, Canada was right there. We invested $200 million-plus, and within 30 days another $600 million. That's showing the leadership that Mr. Oliphant wants to see with this motion that we need to speak to. It's now over $1 billion.

I know that Monsieur Bergeron, all Quebecers and all Canadians will be very happy that the manufacture of vaccines will be, I believe, in the Montreal area. We're all proud of the great knowledge, ability and human resources that we have here to be able to do that in very short order. Watching the news, I'm not sure if all this is correct, but seeing that we're going to be able to start manufacturing our vaccines.... I think it was the CEO or the COO of the plant saying that, by the fall, we will be able to manufacture here. We've learned a lot through this pandemic, and we continue to learn. What this is getting to is the speed of this.

I think that what we see in this motion.... First, I don't agree with much of it, the premise of the motion, but what I say is that it's already past due. It's past its due date. It is no longer whatever was trying to be done here with this motion, but I think it can be amended. We could do something to get us to where we want to be.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sven Spengemann]

Mr. Fonseca, thank you very much.

We'll go straight to Ms. Saks.

[Ya'ara Saks, Liberal, York Centre, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to all the colleagues who are contributing. I feel like we're making progress with Mr. Bergeron's subamendment that we've taken on.

I'd like to answer to what my colleague Mr. Oliphant mentioned with regard to this one statement in the current amendment that we're looking at:

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...impacts of COVID-19 by delaying vaccinations to high-risk people in poor countries.

As my colleague Dr. Fry mentioned, we always have to be so careful in what we put forward in the public realm about our discussions of what we're doing, because there is a tremendous amount of uncertainty. There is a tremendous amount of anxiety with Canadians right now about variants and supply, which vaccine is safe to take and which isn't, and on and on it goes.

In this committee we have the responsibility that any statement that we put forward is based on evidence and is based on clarity of the facts. That is what we're here to present, to do.

As Mr. Fonseca said, the proposal was to pull a draw of 1.9 million from the COVAX stock that we contributed to with 92 countries that are participants in the Gavi COVAX makeup. We were a leader in investing to make sure that, not just for domestic supply—the agreement does allow for domestic draw—but on an international scale there was a collective effort. We were leaders in setting up this structure, and we were leaders in investing in the structure.

That aside, if we want to perhaps say that it is a little bit partisan, let's go to the facts as of March 22. What has COVAX achieved? It's shipped over 31 million vaccines to 57 participant countries, 31 million.

This motion debates about 1.9 million, which we always said we'd have the ability to draw from, versus the eight million that are arriving in Canada by the end of March and the slated 100 million available to Canadians by the end of September.

Let's just deal with the facts, which are the numbers, and numbers don't lie. We know what we are participating in, and we know what we've invested. My colleague Mr. Fonseca really mapped out the amounts of investment that we've put in and the leadership role that we've played.

This statement to say that our draw of 1.9 million is delaying vaccines to high-risk people in poor countries, well, 31 million have already gone out to 57 participating countries, so that statement, to me, really is misleading. It doesn't show the truth of where this program is going, what it is providing globally and what we are leading participants in.

Really, it puts anxiety in the minds of Canadians about what this program is, why we participated in it and what we are contributing to a global effort to address and make sure that every citizen who needs one gets a vaccination and that every person around the world who wants a vaccine can be protected, because we all need to be protected as countries, as individuals and as states. We all have a role to play in this, and Canada has played a leading role.

My colleague Mr. Oliphant has raised his concerns and offered a solution to address this line, and I really feel that we need to look at the numbers that are on the table. They're up on the Gavi website, and you can see the numbers of distribution right there. It's constantly moving and it's constantly changing. The numbers are higher every day in terms of the provision of vaccines to participating countries. The facts are there: 31 million by March 22. I think that is a tremendous accomplishment by COVAX and Gavi, and we can be proud of that.

I really think we need to take some time to consider what the purpose of what we're putting in this statement is, this one line about the committee recognizing the failure and the global economic impacts, because it wholeheartedly isn't in alignment with the data that is available.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sven Spengemann]

Ms. Saks, thank you very much.

I now give the floor to Mr. Bergeron.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Montarville, QC]

Mr. Chair, I will not deny that I am highly skeptical of what is going on right now. In light of Ms. Sahota's amendment, two passages in the main motion seemed problematic to our colleagues on the government side, and I honestly believe that my subamendment changed them in a way that made the motion acceptable.

Is this the ideal motion that our colleagues on the government side would have imagined in their wildest dreams? I am well aware that it is not. However, since Ms. Sahota was not proposing that we remove or change anything else in the motion, could we, in the interest of cooperation, agree to leave it at that and avoid further prolonging this discussion?

I confess I am at a loss as to what to do. I had scribbled down another proposed amendment, but Mr. Oliphant put his forward, and Ms. Fry isn't even satisfied with that. So we may have a debate among Liberals as to whether Mr. Oliphant's proposal is appropriate. It seems to me that everything is being set up to ensure we don't resolve this and we can't reach a compromise.

Once again, I am a little puzzled, not to say disappointed, by what is going on. I will go ahead and read you what I had scribbled down anyway, and you can tell me what you think.

First, I am not a scientist like Ms. Fry, but I consider myself to be a relatively well-informed person who goes to the trouble of following what is being written on the subject. My understanding is that vaccination really does seem to be a good way to keep the variants from spreading as well. So the longer we delay vaccination, the more the variants will be able to spread among people, with extremely damaging effects. So I would not change that part of the motion. However, I would replace “The committee further recognizes that this failure by the government to secure domestic supply makes Canadians more vulnerable” with “These supply issues make Canadians more vulnerable”.

I was hoping to be able to find a solution with this new wording, but I must admit I am increasingly convinced that the government members do not wish to come to a solution. They find such intricate ways to keep going round and round, to prevent us from finding a solution.

I quite honestly confess to you that I don't know what to do anymore. I feel we are wasting time and, meanwhile, we're not doing anything useful. I am disappointed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sven Spengemann]

Thank you very much, Mr. Bergeron.

We have on the floor procedurally, Madam Clerk, a subamendment to Mr. Oliphant's amendment of the main motion, the way I've understood it.

What I'd like to ask colleagues, just in light of the clock.... I'm sensing interest on the part of members to move the conversation forward and to be constructive. I'm also sensing some frustration.

There is some committee business before us, as I've mentioned before. Is there a willingness on the part of the committee to continue this discussion for another 10 minutes to see where it goes, or should we break off now and schedule to revisit? I just want to get a sense from members in terms of where we are with respect to this afternoon's timeline, the thoughts that are before us now and what could be potential solutions to the discussion.

We could run this right to the end of the clock, and we will lose any opportunity to address, I think, some important business that will keep us moving forward, including issues with respect to the agenda for this week, but there may be thoughts to the contrary. I just want to survey quickly, outside of the speakers list that I currently have, the view of the committee in terms of what we should do this afternoon.

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

I am quite distressed. I like Mr. Bergeron's idea of finding a motion that we can all buy, but I am also a little concerned that my intentions and my statements are being misconstrued as part of some Liberal plot.

I really want people to understand. Every single day I read JAMA and the British Medical Journal. I read all of the things that come out on this.

The idea that you're linking the fact that we do not have domestic vaccines to people being able to get variants...to be able to be cured by the vaccine for variants is absolutely untrue. It bothers me that—

[The Chair, Liberal, Sven Spengemann]

Dr. Fry, I think that's more a point of debate than a point of order. What I had—

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

It's not a point of debate.

It's more that I feel that my own statement is being presumed to be malicious, and it isn't. I don't like that, personally.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sven Spengemann]

I don't know if the word “malicious” was used, Dr. Fry. I think this is something that will come—

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

Well, not malicious, but seriously—

[The Chair, Liberal, Sven Spengemann]

What I'm trying to get to in a few short minutes is the committee's sense of where we should take this discussion with respect to the remaining time this afternoon.

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

Well, let's get on to what you need to do in terms of committee business.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sven Spengemann]

I'm happy to let the committee continue. In fact, I wouldn't stand in the way, if that's what the committee feels could and should be done.

I see interest in the substance. I also see some procedural concerns and some concerns with respect to how various positions are being characterized.

Ms. McPherson, do you have a thought on where we should go this afternoon with respect to the remaining timeline of the committee?

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Chair, I think it is only reasonable that we stop, because obviously the Liberals have no interest in actually acting with any sort of good faith on this.

Mr. Bergeron has brought forward exactly what was asked for. He brought forward amendments that met exactly what Ms. Sahota had asked for.

We are continuing to filibuster. We speak about people having a lot of expertise in this committee. I can tell you one thing: I am new. I am a new parliamentarian, and I find it absolutely disgusting to listen to this non-stop when there is so much work to do and so many things that this committee should be looking at.

I'm also very upset that it is being called a partisan snipe. This is something that I would have put forward no matter what. I think it is in fact one of the most pressing issues of our time, and I don't say that lightly.

I would recommend that we stop discussion on this now, because I don't see any way forward that will be fruitful.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sven Spengemann]

Ms. McPherson, thank you.

Mr. Oliphant is the third member on the speakers list on this point. Then, if it's the will of the committee to transition into committee business, I would suggest we do that.

Mr. Oliphant, please give us your thoughts.

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

I'm fine to go to committee business as well.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sven Spengemann]

Let's do that.

I don't want to pre-empt any substantive interest in the motion as it stands. There is room for the committee to take it back up and be constructive. There's also room to talk offline and on the sidelines and hopefully there'll be—

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

Can I, before we go into committee business, just quickly clarify some things? We are back on my amendment, and I haven't spoken for many meetings now, I feel.

I just want to clarify things based on some of the points that were made today.

All I want to say is that when I moved my original amendment, I did it off the floor, on the spot, without consulting with my colleagues. I had had a conversation with Ms. McPherson about removing that, but in terms of the language, as you know, I didn't come prepared with something to email to everybody right away. I just kind of changed stuff off the floor. I was trying to make minimal changes so that we could come to some kind of agreement. I had not consulted with all of my colleagues on the exact language. I was just trying to put something forward that I thought was going to be constructive at that time.

Anyway, it was unfortunate that at that point we didn't get an agreement. That's all I wanted to say.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sven Spengemann]

Thank you, Ms. Sahota.

If colleagues agree then, let's pull the parking break up on this but preserve the interest in continuing the discussion further offline or in the committee setting. There is some interest still on the part of at least some members.

Let's disconnect. Let's go back to the link for the in camera portion of the meeting this afternoon and reconnect in about five minutes, in camera.

Thank you, colleagues.

[Proceedings continue in camera]