Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'll be voting for Mr. Genuis's motion because I think the main motion introduced by Dr. Fry concerns me. I think we need to have some off-line discussions about what the nature of that five-meeting study would be before we agree to it.
The way I read the original motion introduced by Dr. Fry is that it says that if it is adopted we are going to study, amongst other things, access to abortion in the United States of America, which I do not think that we as a committee should do.
Clearly, I'm not alone in my interpretation of the motion introduced by Dr. Fry, because I've listened to the debate on that motion very carefully throughout today, and clearly, others on the committee have interpreted the motion in the same way, which is that if the motion is adopted, it would include a study on access to abortion in the United States. I do not think that is a matter that this committee should be seized with.
It's why earlier in our debate today I moved an amendment to strike the reference in the motion to the recently leaked draft ruling from the Supreme Court of the United States, an amendment that did not pass.
As I've said, I don't support this committee studying access to abortion services in the United States. I think there are many matters of more urgent concern in the bilateral relationship between Canada and the United States.
I want to be clear: I fully support women's reproductive and health rights here in Canada and I support the current common law and legislative frameworks that have long been in place. I know with a great deal of certainty that Canadians do not want the debate on abortion here reopened. We don't want to import into this country the kind of fractiousness that we have seen south of the border on issues like abortion, which is another reason why I don't think we should be studying the issue of access to abortion in the United States in this committee.
Look, I support this committee studying access to abortion services and access to women's health and reproductive services in the global south. I think that's well within our remit to study. I think it's well within our remit to study the list of health issues that Dr. Fry has put into her motion. I think it's worth studying a full range of health services, including family planning and modern contraception; comprehensive sexuality education; safe and legal abortion and post-abortion care; laws restricting or prohibiting women's rights to abortion, the medical and socio-economic importance of maintaining the right of access to safe abortion; and prevention and treatment of HIV/AIDS and sexually transmitted infections. I think that's all within the committee's remit, provided that it focuses on countries that Canada has traditionally provided aid to in respect of those services.
That does not include the United States of America, our largest trading partner and ally, and I don't think the study should include that, which is why I moved the amendment earlier to strike the words “given recent reports of international backsliding related to women's sexual and reproductive health and rights”. Clearly, that was a reference to the recently leaked draft of the Supreme Court of the United States, and I don't think we should be importing that kind of divisive politics into Canada. For those reasons, I don't support this committee studying that issue as it relates to the United States.
There are so many other issues of concern to Canada-U.S. relations that are more important than access in the United States to abortion services. Line 5 is one example. It supplies half of Ontario and Quebec's gasoline, diesel, propane and jet fuel—half—and it is now being—