That's what it's clearly a reference to. There's no mistaking the fact that the Prime Minister and other ministers of the Crown used the reports of that leaked draft to introduce initiatives and discussion here in this country about domestic abortion policy. That's clearly what happened in the executive branch of government. That was followed up by discussions that took place in other aspects in Parliament. That's how I read this motion. It's done in reference to the recent leaked draft out of the Supreme Court of the United States. I don't believe that should be the focus of Canada-U.S. relations.
I support Dr. Fry's view that the broader issue of access to reproductive practices is an issue for Parliament. It's an issue for the committee, but I don't think it should be in respect of the United States. That is the whole issue here.
If the committee were to agree to undertake a study of women's access to reproductive measures in the developing world, in the developed world, where it's not available for women and girls then I think that is a matter the committee could take up. But if it's being done in the context of “recent reports of international backsliding”, which I take to be a reference to the leaked draft by the Supreme Court of the United States—a decision, by the way, that has yet to be released by the court—I don't support a study like that. I don't think that should be the focus of the committee. If the committee decides to study women's reproductive rights in places around the world as a matter of general import, and it's not a study focused on what's going on domestically in the United States, what's going on at the Supreme Court of the United States or what's going on with the potential decision by the Supreme Court of the United States, then that's a whole other matter.
However, that isn't the context of this motion, and not the context in which this motion was introduced, in light of the Prime Minister's comments, in light of the comments of other ministers of the Crown, in light of what is going on in other parliamentary committees and what is in the black-letter text of the motion.
It's a very different motion from what Dr. Fry introduced last December. That is my first concern, among others. That is my first concern.
I do not believe that we should be meddling in a potential decision of the highest judicial body of the United States. While it's not entirely captured by the sub judice convention, it's not appropriate for us to be focused on that potential decision. We should respect the court's independence and let that court make up its mind.
Further, we should not be interfering in a domestic matter that has no impact on access to abortion services here in Canada. If we want to undertake—