Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I listened closely to what the member had to say, and I couldn't help but be shocked at the crocodile tears being shed by the Conservative members supposedly because we are preventing the study on Ukraine from moving forward. I would like to remind members that, in an effort to get past this filibustering, a motion was put forward in the House to allow committees to travel, including to Ukraine. However, the Conservatives, not wanting the filibuster to end until the Liberals withdraw their motion on women's reproductive health, said they would vote against all motions. That includes the motion in the House that would allow this committee to travel to Ukraine and Poland, meet with Ukrainian refugees and see how they were being received in Poland. The committee is also supposed to go to Sweden and Finland to support our allies in their request to join NATO, and travel to Belgium precisely to meet with NATO officials.
It is surprising, then, to hear the members bellyache about the fact that we won't be able to discuss issues relating to Ukraine, when they are the ones who continue to prevent this committee from finalizing its travel plans. Think how much our Ukrainian allies would appreciate seeing the members of this committee come to their country to learn first-hand all about the challenges they are facing. Ukraine's former ambassador to Canada requested that Canadian officials travel to Ukraine, and the Conservatives are the ones stopping it from happening.
It is shocking, to say the least, to sit here and listen as our friends in the Conservative Party shed their crocodile tears, in an attempt to mislead people and make them think that we don't want to move forward with the study on Ukraine. The fact is they are the ones throwing a wrench in the works and preventing us from finalizing the trip.
Mr. Chair, I don't think anyone would believe that the intent of Ms. Fry's motion is to supersede the committee's ongoing studies. From the outset, when Ms. Fry decided to bring her motion to the committee for debate and a vote—a motion that had been put on notice—I voiced my concern because that isn't how the committee usually operates. Normally, decisions about the committee's future business are based on discussions at the steering committee level, and then, the committee decides. While I recognize Ms. Fry has consistently maintained that the committee should examine the issue, I was shocked, to say the least, at the unusual and peculiar way in which it was brought before the committee. For months, she has stressed how important it is that the committee study the reproductive health of women, but we haven't had the opportunity to do so.
Unless I'm mistaken, no one is claiming that the study she is proposing should take priority over those under way. The Conservatives' own filibustering is the very thing preventing the committee from discussing Taiwan, Ukraine, vaccine equity and the bills Mr. Genuis so wants us to discuss. I find that deeply disturbing. I can't seem to find a polite way to express what I'm thinking, but suffice it to say, it's disturbing to watch the Conservative members partake in this filibuster on the pretext that we want to discuss something other than Ukraine.
It is equally disturbing to watch my esteemed colleague Mr. Morantz impute motives and comments to the new Ukrainian ambassador to Canada. I think the new ambassador is perfectly capable of understanding that this isn't about putting the Ukraine study on hold, even though the Conservatives have already delayed the study by quite a few meetings. I think she understands that this is about making sure the committee examines women's reproductive health at some point. Far be it from me to impute motives to the Ukrainian ambassador or put words in her mouth, but I'm quite sure she would think it quite relevant for the committee to examine the issue, which affects over 50% of the world's population. It's certainly an issue worthy of our attention.
Now I'll come back to Mr. Genuis's amendment, which would put a halt to this filibuster, so that we could get back to the studies and bills that require the committee's attention.
I explained why I have concerns about the second part of the motion. As it currently stands, it refers to the study. The study being referred to in the motion in amendment is the same one mentioned at the very beginning of the motion, where it says “this study”, in other words, the study on women's reproductive health. The amendment deals with the committee's work plan for the coming weeks and months, once we have completed the studies on Ukraine, vaccine equity and Taiwan, as well as studies on legislation sent from the House of Commons.
I already had concerns about that part of the amendment, but Mr. Oliphant said something that troubled me with respect to the first part of the amendment. Talking about our study on Taiwan, he said that the Special Committee on Canada-China relations had been reconstituted at the Conservatives' request. I won't rehash the speech I gave in the House to tell you how strange it is to me that the Conservatives suddenly have a renewed interest in Canada-China relations now that the Afghanistan committee is about to wrap up its work. In any case, since the decision was made to reconstitute the committee, perhaps it's better to let it examine the issue of Taiwan, and we could send the committee everything we've done thus far. We could also opt to continue or finalize our study. Basically, we first need to decide what we want to do about the study on Taiwan.
If I may, Mr. Chair, I'd like to move a subamendment, which I've already sent to the clerk. It reads as follows:
That the words “after the completion of the committee’s studies on” and “prescribing the manner in which the study is to proceed” be replaced with “the committee makes a decision on the studies before it on” and “specifying the manner in which the studies be undertaken”, respectively.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
