Foreign Affairs Committee on March 23rd, 2021

[The Chair, Liberal, Sven Spengemann]

I do not believe so. I think it reverts to the original amendment once the subamendment has been disposed of, unless we hear otherwise from the clerk.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Montarville, QC]

No, Mr. Chair. Logically, we cannot go back to Ms. Sahota's amendment. It proposed two things: to remove the last sentence in the original motion, which my subamendment has just replaced; and to change a passage in the original motion, which my subamendment has already changed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sven Spengemann]

Mr. Bergeron, I may have misspoken procedurally. It should be the amendment by Ms. Sahota as amended by the subamendment that we're now discussing. In effect, it is your language that is now on the table as accepted and open for further discussion.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

I have a point of order, a point of clarification. Basically we are now looking at the entire motion as amended by the subamendment. That's what we're really on, right?

It's back to my motion in a way, but it's been further amended as amended by the subamendment, so we're looking at the entirety, which then reads with Mr. Bergeron's amendment, right?

[The Chair, Liberal, Sven Spengemann]

I think we're all in agreement that....

Procedurally, Madam Clerk, maybe there's a better way to express that.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

I think it was just the way it was worded. I totally get what we're doing, but it was just worded weirdly.

Thank you for the clarification.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sven Spengemann]

We will open a new speakers list. So far I have Mr. Oliphant and Dr. Fry.

Madam Clerk, I rely on you for comments from the committee room.

Go ahead, Mr. Oliphant.

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

Thank you.

I think I'll just pick up from where I was. I'm looking for some new language.

As I said, I like Mr. Bergeron's rewriting of this. We now have a new version we're dealing with, which incorporates Ms. Sahota's amendments, which would then work.

As I go through this, the wording is:

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,

To me that is convoluted and is a difficult sentence.

I'm struggling with trying to unpack that. I have no difficulty recognizing that Canada does not have domestic supply of vaccines. Successive governments and successive businesses have determined that Canada is not a place that was ready to produce these vaccines. In hindsight now we think it should have been, and that some of the decisions by previous governments should not have been made and that some of the business decisions made by major pharmaceutical companies did not take Canada's importance into account. I think we now know that.

We don't have domestic production, but we made a massive procurement effort. We did two things. We invested in the development of vaccines and we secured contracts for seven vaccines to make sure we had enough vaccines for Canadians. There is a delay on that, obviously, and we are watching us play catch-up. I'm not denying that. I'm not denying that some countries are ahead of us and some countries are behind us and that we need to do that. However, there is a view here that because we are taking a small number out of the millions of doses of vaccines now being provided through the COVAX mechanism, that is somehow causal and problematic for Canadians' well-being. I don't think we have evidence of that.

Do I think the world will be safe when the whole world is vaccinated? Yes. It will not be safe until then. Do I believe we should have a robust domestic vaccination program? Yes.

Frankly, it's a little bit like when you're on the airplane and they make the announcement about putting on your oxygen mask when it falls down. It's like we're a developing country. I'm not shy about saying we should put the mask on first to help the people beside us. However, I also say we don't just leave the mask on ourselves; we continue and do that.

Canada has shown leadership, pretty profound leadership, in encouraging European and other western countries to engage in the COVAX initiative. I don't think that's reflected in the motion.

When I read the motion, I see it as a partisan snipe. What I'm trying to do is take the partisanship out of that and ask what we can learn about COVAX as an initiative. Maybe we don't know everything about it. What can we learn about countries that have now acceded to COVAX that wouldn't have if Canada hadn't taken that initiative? What is the problem? I read today about one country that is short on its COVAX supply, and I immediately made notes about this, because that's part of my job, and will be looking for ways to help that country.

There are dozens and dozens of countries that need vaccines. What we want to do is to ensure we all get them. We want to ensure Canadians get them and we want to ensure others get them.

Witness to that is the fact that when the leader of the federal NDP was asked if indeed he would exercise Canada's option to access COVAX vaccines, he did not say no. That is because I believe he's also doing his job as the leader of the New Democratic Party in Canada to ensure that Canadians have vaccines.

Similarly to what we're doing with the Americans, we will make sure we get vaccines on loan from the Americans and then pay them back, to try to equalize this distribution. The same could be said for the AstraZeneca vaccines we got from India, that we should not have taken them because they should go to another country. The same could be said for the Pfizer or the Moderna vaccines: Don't take them, give them to someone else. That's not the way we should lead in Canada.

We have a variety of things.

We have the problem of domestic production, which we are working on and can do better. Opposition, please get your ideas in on how to encourage that investment in Canada. I think it's great if you do. We also have procured vaccines, the largest number, the largest array of vaccines of any country in the world, which I'm very proud of, and they're coming in.

I will admit I did get my vaccination last week. I happen to fall within that sweet spot between 60 and 64. The reason I did that is that there is a short shelf life on the AstraZeneca vaccines. I don't want to lose them. The drugstores are calling to make sure we use them. We use them because they're going to expire.

Then we have the issue of COVAX, which I'd like to know more about. I'm very pleased to invite the minister to talk about this. I think that will enlighten us about what COVAX was intended to do, how it's being perceived in the developing countries as well as in developed countries and how it is encouraging developed countries to engage in COVAX even further. I'm reading the numbers every day about countries that are now putting.... Billions of dollars are invested in COVAX. Bravo! That's what we should do. But other countries don't do that. Canada led the way on that.

I would like to see in this motion some recognition of the fact that we have provided leadership on COVAX and that it's working. I'm not denying that we are the first country to access them, but I'm also not embarrassed about it. Canadians want to be vaccinated. I get it. Canadians want others to be vaccinated as well.

We also looked at the death rates from COVID-19, both the morbidity rates and the mortality rates. We recognize that the mortality rates are much higher in some countries than in others. It would be absolutely naive to say that every country should need, does need or should get vaccines at the same rate without having an understanding of both morbidity and mortality.

When you look at those rates, you begin to see that Canada needs them. We have a higher death rate. When I look at the numbers, say, in Nigeria, their average age is so much younger than Canada's and the mortality rate is thus much lower. We have an aging population; therefore, we have a more vulnerable population than other countries.

I think the nuance of all of that needs to be embedded in this motion. I'm probably less concerned about it now that we've passed the amendment that we don't report it to the House, that we use this. This is where I'd open the door to Mr. Harris and Ms. McPherson to say if the minister has so disappointed in her explanation of what is going on, we could make a report to the House. We're not precluding that. That is the kind of thing we can do, but we should do it based on evidence.

All of that being said, Mr. Chair, I would like to make an amendment. I need to look at the clerk. As Mr. Bergeron said, the subamendment has changed the amendment; therefore, I believe I would be amending the motion now as it stands in committee as opposed to amending the amendment.

I think we can do that. Is that correct? I see her nodding.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sven Spengemann]

Madam Clerk, I believe that's going in the right direction. Is that correct?

[The Clerk of the Committee, Ms. Erica Pereira]

Yes.

Mr. Chair, as long as everybody understands—it was not clear to me—that you have agreed to the motion as amended by the subamendment already, then that's fine. You can move on to a new amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sven Spengemann]

That is we can as long as the text of that amendment doesn't touch the motion that Ms. Sahota introduced and Mr. Bergeron amended. My understanding is that it will not.

Mr. Oliphant.

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

I don't have this in writing, and I apologize. Mr. Bergeron's amendment happily surprised me, but it still surprised me.

What I would like to do is amend the sentence that begins, “The committee further recognizes this failure” to say, “While the committee recognizes leadership by the Canadian government in the COVAX initiative, it also recognizes that the government's draw upon COVAX vaccines will”.

Could I cede the floor, or do you want me to keep talking while I write this out?

[The Chair, Liberal, Sven Spengemann]

[Technical difficulty—Editor] on to something constructive. I don't know whether there's opposition to your proceeding and developing your thoughts, but I think they may take us somewhere.

I also want to take the opportunity to remind colleagues that we have an hour scheduled for this. I'm not going to prejudge how long this discussion will take or what the will of the committee is. We have a substantial number of items of committee business that we also have on the agenda for this afternoon.

I take Mr. Genuis's point that we would, I think, collectively want to move this forward. I think we are in the process of doing that.

Mr. Oliphant, perhaps you would want to take a moment to elaborate to the point of potentially arriving at an amendment. If not, we can revert to the speakers list.

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

I think I have it now.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sven Spengemann]

Go ahead, please.

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

That sentence would read, “While the committee recognizes the leadership of the Canadian government in the COVAX initiative, it also has concerns that the limited supply”—following up on Mr. Bergeron's not blaming, but saying it, and people can draw their own conclusions—“of vaccines in Canada makes” —and then it continues—“Canadians more vulnerable to dangerous variants and extends the detrimental global impacts of COVID-19”.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sven Spengemann]

Thank you very much, Mr. Oliphant.

I now take Mr. Genuis's point. This is an amendment to the original motion. It's substantively different from the thought of the previous speaker.

We have a long speakers list that was developed prior to Mr. Oliphant's taking the floor. I would like to solicit a speakers list on this amendment.

A number of colleagues have their hands up. If it's not to speak to Mr. Oliphant's amendment, I would ask you to lower your hand and then just re-enter. If it is to Mr. Oliphant's amendment, I'm a bit challenged in terms of sequencing, because I have some hands up and I also have interventions from the floor.

Let's try to be constructive, colleagues, and stay in the vein of Mr. Oliphant's attempt to bring us to progress on this. If you have thoughts on the amendment, please express them. If you don't, please lower your hand.

I have on the list now Dr. Fry, Mr. Fonseca, Ms. Saks.

I see some hands being lowered. Also, I see Mr. Bergeron, through the clerk—

[Marty Morantz, Conservative, Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, MB]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sven Spengemann]

—as well as Ms. McPherson.

There is a point of order.

Mr. Morantz.

[Marty Morantz, Conservative, Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, MB]

I'd like to have the amendment in writing before we continue the discussion. I think that's only fair.

Also, I think Mr. Bergeron should have a translated version as well. We're doing these motions on the fly. It's difficult to have a debate about a motion when you're just hearing one member dictate verbally what he thinks it should be. If we could get it in writing, in English and French, before we discuss it, that would be ideal.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sven Spengemann]

Thank you for the point, Mr. Morantz.

Madam Clerk, is there a way to make that happen?

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

Mr. Chair, that's a point of order, so on that point of order, my concern is that the Standing Orders are clear that amendments may be made verbally in a committee, not in writing, and may come in the language of the member's choice. I'm not saying it wouldn't be helpful, but I'm concerned [Technical difficulty—Editor] following the Standing Orders. I really think we do better when we stick to the Standing Orders, because in debate and in committee it's quite different when giving notice of motion and presenting motions, which need to come in both official languages. But I do want to retain the right of members to make amendments to motions in one of the two official languages, French or English, and we can do our best to try to circulate them.

This would not nullify the motion. I think it would be very dangerous and I want to make sure that we follow the Standing Orders. The clerk can confirm if I'm right or wrong.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sven Spengemann]

Mr. Oliphant, I didn't see Mr. Morantz's point as an attempt to extinguish your amendment. The amendment is verbally before the committee and is in order. I simply saw it as a way to facilitate discussion among those colleagues who want to have the text in front of them but hadn't had a chance to write it down, as you said. If there's a way to generate that, I think it would be helpful, in the spirit of the constructive vein the committee has struck this afternoon. If not, then absolutely your amendment stands.

I'm now going to attempt to assemble a speakers list based on the hands that were already raised. There is interest in discussing the point that you put forward. Dr. Fry, Mr. Fonseca, Ms. Saks, Monsieur Bergeron and Ms. McPherson are on the list as it currently stands.

Dr. Fry.

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

Are we speaking to Mr. Oliphant's subamendment?

[The Chair, Liberal, Sven Spengemann]

It's an amendment.