Foreign Affairs Committee on May 16th, 2022

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Thank you to our new chair. Well done. I like to be the first person called.

First of all, I want to say that I commend Ms. Fry for bringing this forward. Of course I will support this. I'm going to try not to be emotional here, but I am utterly filled with rage when I hear things like trade trumping reproductive health.

I brought forward this motion last week in SDIR, the international human rights subcommittee, because women's health and access to women's rights is vital. It is vital around the world. We are seeing backsliding, not just in the United States, not just at the federal level, but certainly at state level. We are seeing a lack of access in our own country. We are seeing that reproductive health for women around the world is backsliding in countries around the world.

Frankly, Mr. Chair, the fact that this is deemed not important enough to study is absolutely appalling. It is terrifying—absolutely terrifying—to be a woman of reproductive age in this world right now.

I want to talk about ensuring access around the world. I want to talk about ensuring that the rights of women are available around the world. It should be happening at the international human rights subcommittee. The Conservative party has deemed that not appropriate to do at the international human rights committee. I respect Mr. Chong very much for the work that he does on this committee, but I am appalled by his language.

I will be supporting this motion.

[The Vice-Chair, Bloc, Stéphane Bergeron]

Thank you, Ms. McPherson.

Go ahead, Mr. Genuis.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I think there's the question of process and then there's the question of substance. I want to comment initially on the question of process.

We're discussing what the committee's agenda should be going forward. I think, as it has been rightly pointed out, the rules of committee permit somebody to put forward a motion during committee business and this motion has notice. That doesn't change the fact that, as you've pointed out, Mr. Chair, the typical procedure for this committee to consider matters of any level of importance is for those to be considered by the subcommittee on agenda and procedure, which is the vehicle that we have set up. The subcommittee on agenda and procedure reviews the items that come forward to consider how we prioritize those studies, and then to weigh up the different issues that may be on the agenda. At the foreign affairs committee, we deal with so many issues that are of such consequence all the time. I think the best way to adjudicate that prioritization is through the subcommittee.

This particular motion doesn't just seek to introduce a general topic, it also has some very prescriptive direction in terms of the scheduling and study. For instance, it says “no fewer than five meetings”. Is five the right number, or is it three or seven? These are the questions that I think are most appropriately dealt with at the subcommittee on agenda and procedure, which is set up precisely for that purpose.

The other point I would make is that I think colleagues should be aware of the fact that we have a responsibility as a committee to prioritize legislation. Again, that's not with reference to people's views on particular topics; it's the fact that as a standing committee of the House of Commons, the House of Commons at times directs us to study legislation, and we have to prioritize that study of legislation.

There is a scheduled vote on Wednesday on the organ harvesting bill, and I was hoping to have some discussion of that a bit later, but I want to flag that unless the vote goes very differently from how I expect it to go, that piece of legislation will be coming to the committee after Wednesday. In addition to the existing studies we have on COVAX, Ukraine and Taiwan, we will need to adjust our agenda to put that on the list.

Also, there is Mr. McKay's bill. Originally, it's Senator Dechêne's bill on supply chains and human rights. After that is adopted by the House at second reading, it will come to this committee as well.

In addition to any discussion of the existing priorities we have as a committee—the studies we're already doing—we will first need to study both of those pieces of legislation. On the subject of agenda again, I suspect and I hope that the study on the organ harvesting bill will be fairly quick. I suspect that we will need a bit more time with the supply chain slavery bill, because it is a bill that, at least in our committee, hasn't been studied before. I think there will be some stakeholders that will want to be heard on it, and some potential amendments that people will want to bring forward.

Very respectfully, as a matter of process, there are other things we could talk about. It's already been mentioned here and I know from others that there are multiple committees that are bringing forward the same discussion. We can talk, as well, about that, but I would prefer to say let's let the subcommittee deal with this. On our side, out of respect for our caucus, I'd like our vice-chair to be able to be part of those discussions as well.

Mr. Chair, what I'll do is move that this matter be referred to the subcommittee and that the subcommittee can report back to the main committee.

[The Vice-Chair, Bloc, Stéphane Bergeron]

Madam Clerk, I need some guidance regarding Mr. Genuis's motion. Does it take precedence over Ms. Fry's?

It would seem so.

Do the honourable members wish to vote on Mr. Genuis's motion, which seeks to send Ms. Fry's motion to the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure?

I'm taking down names for the speaking list.

Ms. Fry, go ahead.

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

Mr. Chair, the motion cannot be debated. It must be put to a vote immediately.

[The Vice-Chair, Bloc, Stéphane Bergeron]

Sorry, Ms. Fry, but we can't debate the motion. We have to proceed with the vote immediately.

[Rachel Bendayan, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

I'd like a recorded division, please, Mr. Chair.

[The Vice-Chair, Bloc, Stéphane Bergeron]

I will now let the clerk proceed with the recorded division.

(Motion negatived: nays 6; yeas 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[The Vice-Chair, Bloc, Stéphane Bergeron]

We are now back on Ms. Fry's motion.

Ms. Fry, you have the floor.

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

Thank you very much, Chair.

I really need to speak to this. I don't get furious; it's not something I do very much, but I am emotional about the very idea that Mr. Chong, for whom I have a great deal of respect given his integrity, ethics, etc.—

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills, ON]

Mr. Chair, I have a point of order.

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

I'm shocked that Mr. Chong—

[The Vice-Chair, Bloc, Stéphane Bergeron]

Just a moment, Ms. Fry. We have a point of order.

Mr. Chong, go ahead.

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills, ON]

Mr. Chair, I have always spoken to the substance of issues at this committee. I have sat through a number of interventions now where my reputation and my intentions are being impugned by members of this committee, and that is out of order.

I don't mind if members speak to the substance of what is at hand and whether they agree or disagree with my position on a particular issue. However, I don't particularly feel that it is in order for members to impugn my motives or interpret my position on various issues.

Mr. Chair, I ask, through you, that members stick to the substance of the issues instead of attacking me on this committee.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

[The Vice-Chair, Bloc, Stéphane Bergeron]

Thank you, Mr. Chong.

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

Mr. Chair, I would like—

[The Vice-Chair, Bloc, Stéphane Bergeron]

Just a moment, Ms. Fry. We have another point of order.

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

Every time I try to speak, I am being railroaded out of speaking and that's annoying me.

[The Vice-Chair, Bloc, Stéphane Bergeron]

Just a moment, Ms. Fry.

Who had the point of order, Madam Clerk?

[The Clerk]

It was Ms. McPherson.

[The Vice-Chair, Bloc, Stéphane Bergeron]

Ms. McPherson, you may speak to your point of order.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Chair, I just want to point out that it is entirely appropriate to respond to somebody's intervention in committee.

[The Vice-Chair, Bloc, Stéphane Bergeron]

I fully understand your concerns, Mr. Chong, but I'm going to let Ms. Fry finish explaining her rationale, if you don't mind. You're next on the list, so you'll get the opportunity to respond to her comments, if you so choose.

Go ahead, Ms. Fry.

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

I did not insult Mr. Chong. I said I have the greatest respect for him.

What I think he just argued is that people should not impugn his motives or, in fact, assume or interpret his intention. Well, that is precisely what he did on this motion to my intention. Mr. Chong assumed that this was about abortion. Well, I want to tell Mr. Chong that I brought this forward in December. It was shoved under a table or a rug somewhere. Nobody ever talked about it again.

I am a physician. I have to tell you, I chair the Canadian Association of Parliamentarians for Population Development. I also work on this at the G7 and G20 levels. This is one of the most important issues. This is an SDG issue, Mr. Chair.

I want to say that this has nothing to do with abortion, but it has. If you are going to talk about the range of sexual and reproductive health, it starts with contraception. It starts with education to young people about their sexuality and taking chances, etc., without knowledge of contraception and sexually transmitted diseases. It moves into prenatal care, pregnancy and delivery, postpartum care and neonatal care.

This didn't start; this has been going on and escalating. Since COVID started, this has moved forward exponentially around the world. I am reading from the UNFPA statistics that started in 2019 about the rise in deaths from postpartum hemorrhage, which is the biggest and the largest cause of death in Africa today in young women between the ages of 15 and 19. This is a preventable problem we're talking about here. Women make up 51% of this world, 51% of this global population. If we don't care about their dying in childbirth, we don't care about their dying because of postpartum hemorrhage, we don't care about their having access to a safe delivery if they want to....

Abortion is one of the issues; it is not the only issue. I think the idea that we should jump to conclusions over something that is clear....

The UNFPA and the World Health Organization deem this to be a crisis right now. When a woman dies from postpartum hemmorhage, the majority of her children under the age of five do not survive. We're talking about a real problem with people's lives, with people's ability to do something that we think is simple: to have or not have a child, to choose if we get pregnant or not and to have a safe delivery. This is not happening around the world.

We hear about critical infrastructure needs for clinical care around the world. We hear about it with COVID. We hear about it with TB. We hear about it with malaria. We hear about it with HIV/AIDS. We hear about it in everything. Now that we have rape being used as a tactic of war in Ukraine and around the world, and we hear of about 85 million people being displaced, women and children are at great risk of sexual assault and sexual violence. It's getting worse. I cannot believe that we would think....

As I said, I brought this up before. I waited patiently. It was not accepted. It was pushed under the table. I am bringing it up again because this is a crisis. This is a critical issue for women, children and infants around the world. This is about sexually transmitted diseases, one of which we just listened about from the Global Fund, which is called HIV. We hear that girls from 15 to 24 are getting HIV. They may not be dying of AIDS, but they're getting HIV, which can ruin their ability to have children later on in their lives. This is something that, as a physician, I feel really strongly about.

Every single year we take this issue of sexual and reproductive health to the G7 and the G20. International organizations are dealing with this. This is an urgent issue, and I am told that it should be put aside. For what? Don't women matter? Don't 51% of the people in this world and their children matter? Do we not care? Am I hearing this from this committee?

We can wrap ourselves around process. You know, Mr. Bergeron brought up an important point, and I heard him. I think he may have had a point, but that's not the point. The substance of this issue is so urgent that the World Health Organization calls it a crisis. I guess we don't even know what a crisis is anymore because we face so many of them.

The lives of women and children around this world are in jeopardy. I'm bringing up an issue to deal with it. In December it was kicked somewhere out of the room. I will not stand down on this issue because it is so important to the lives of people everywhere. Even the bare access to contraception is denied because of costs and for the fact that there are many reasons why young people don't get an opportunity to look at this.

Sexually transmitted diseases like HIV, chlamydia, gonorrhea and syphilis are all still abounding in the world. We thought we had gotten rid of them about 25 years ago. They're still there. This is something we need to deal with.

I don't know if any of you know that when a women has more than five children, her uterus becomes like a piece of cardboard. The uterus is a muscle. It clamps together to stop bleeding after a baby is born. When a women is having her tenth child because she has no choice and her uterus is like a piece of cardboard and cannot close down to stop the bleeding she dies. She dies. There's no infrastructure to help her in some of these countries.

I'm sorry. I am very emotional about this. I delivered 800 babies in my lifetime. I don't want this to be something that we think is not good enough for us but is good enough for people in Africa, Latin America and in many countries where they have no access to this kind of care. I will not stand down.

I am sorry, Chair. I don't usually get emotional. It's not my way of doing things. I have to be calm when I'm a physician. I can't get emotional. I am being emotional at the callousness of what was said about this motion. It's the callousness, the lack of humanity, the lack of compassion and the lack of caring because what are women? Are we to be thrown away?

I think that time went by when we were chattel and possessions. We have rights. We all sit on this committee and talk about gender equality and about women's rights are human rights. When we talk about their human rights I am getting this kind of attitude from colleagues of mine. For shame.

Thank you, Chair.