Foreign Affairs Committee on May 16th, 2022

[The Vice-Chair, Bloc, Stéphane Bergeron]

Thank you, Ms. Fry.

Go ahead, Mr. Chong.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

First off, I did not read into the motion “abortion”. It's explicitly mentioned in the motion four times.

Look, I appreciate that Madam Fry introduced this motion. Part of the motion I'm concerned about is the part that says “given recent reports of international backsliding related to women’s sexual and reproductive health and rights”. Taken in the context of overall parliamentary business, it's a clear reference to the leaked draft by the Supreme Court of the United States and I think, Mr. Chair, that's the problem in the motion. I think we do not want Canada-U.S. relations to be consumed by the issue of abortion.

I agree with Dr. Fry about the issue of abortion in many other countries around the world. I agree with her on reports of gender-based violence against women in Ukraine and elsewhere. I agree with her on all of those issues. I think it's important that women have access to reproductive practices. Mr. Chair, I want to emphasize that I fully support women's reproductive and health rights. I do not support any change to Canada's existing legislative framework, both statutory and non-statutory. I have heard loud and clear over many years that Canadians do not want the issue of abortion to be reopened. They do not want this debate to be reopened in this country.

The framing of this motion is the issue. It is in the context of the recent leaked draft by the Supreme Court of the United States.

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

No, it isn't.

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

Mr. Chair, that's how I read the motion.

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

And you're wrong.

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

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—

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

I have a point of order, Chair.

[The Vice-Chair, Bloc, Stéphane Bergeron]

Go ahead, Ms. Fry.

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

Mr. Chair, nowhere in my motion....

This point is out of order.

This motion says nothing about the United States. It speaks to “the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs undertake a comprehensive study on the global access to a full range”—

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

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

—of health services”.

Mr. Chong is filibustering, Chair. He is not speaking to my motion. Nowhere does my motion speak to the Supreme Court or to the United States.

[The Vice-Chair, Bloc, Stéphane Bergeron]

I think that's a point of debate, and you'll get the chance to have your say. You're next on the list, after Mr. Genuis.

Do you still wish to raise a point of order, Mr. Genuis?

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

No. Mr. Chong can continue. Thank you.

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

Mr. Chair, I'm not filibustering. I was impugned at this committee on a number of occasions, so I am just responding to make clear what my position is.

My position is that I fully support women's reproductive and health rights, but I also know that my constituents and Canadians generally do not want the debate on abortion reopened in this country.

My second broad point is that I do not believe that this committee should be studying the issue of a potential leaked draft out of the Supreme Court of the United States. I think there are matters of much greater importance in bilateral relations between Canada and the United States than that issue.

The third broad point is that, broadly speaking, I think it is well within the remit of the committee to study women's reproductive and health rights around the world, particularly in war zones and in conflict zones and particularly in developing countries where those services may not be available.

Those were the three broad clear points I was trying to make, Mr. Chair.

First, I fully support women's reproductive and health rights and, in that, I support the current legislative framework here in Canada. I support both the common law decisions that have been promulgated over many decades and I support the current legislative framework. I know first-hand from constituents and Canadians that they do not want this debate reopened.

Secondly, I do not believe it is within the responsibility of this committee to be looking at U.S. domestic abortion policy or to be studying this issue in the context of the leaked Supreme Court decision.

Lastly, I think it is within the remit of the committee to take a broader look at women's rights globally, but I think that should be done as a broader discussion about where the committee will be going in the future.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Vice-Chair, Bloc, Stéphane Bergeron]

Thank you, Mr. Chong.

I want to let everyone know that we have now gone over our meeting time.

Mr. Genuis, you have the floor, followed by Ms. Fry.

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

Mr. Chair, because Dr. Fry wanted to respond, maybe I'll strike for now. If you could put me on the list at the bottom, I'll have some things to say, but I'm happy for her to go first.

[The Vice-Chair, Bloc, Stéphane Bergeron]

Thank you, Mr. Genuis.

Ms. Fry, go ahead.

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

I have nothing further to say. I made my points.

Thank you, Chair.

[The Vice-Chair, Bloc, Stéphane Bergeron]

Does anyone else wish to comment on the motion?

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

I'll go, then. I did want to comment on this. I thought Dr. Fry had responses.

I think we have to be honest about what's happening here. Dr. Fry spoke very passionately and said many things that I agree with, but she also said this is not about abortion. Maybe it would be helpful to reread the motion we're debating so that those listening can decide if this is about abortion or not. The motion says:

That, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), given recent reports of international backsliding related to women's sexual and reproductive health and rights, the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs undertake a comprehensive study on the global access to the 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 socioeconomic importance of maintaining the right to access safe abortion; and prevention and treatment of HIV/AIDS and sexually transmitted infections and what actions Canada can undertake to support women's sexual and reproductive health and rights globally; that the committee hold no fewer than (5) five meetings; and that the committee report its findings to the House.

That is the motion put forward today, for which notice was given after a Supreme Court leak in the United States, and it mentions abortion four times. For context, as members know, many motions are being put forward at various committees by members of the Liberal caucus with respect to the issue of abortion.

I recently read the book written by the former justice minister and attorney general, Jody Wilson-Raybould, who says in the 10th chapter, “I remember decisions being made in an effort to trigger a debate over abortion, which no one had any desire to reopen, for no other reason but to try to make other parties squirm or fuel fundraising efforts.” Again, those are not my words. Those are the words of Jody Wilson-Raybould, the former minister of justice and attorney general, who was speaking to the motivations of her own party. I, of course, am not privy to those internal discussions, but that is a direct quotation from her book.

I think it is very legitimate for this committee to have discussions about process, but the frame we're being given by Dr. Fry is that to raise questions about this in the midst of the broad range of issues that are going on, and ask what order we should study them in and say these things should be considered by the subcommittee, is somehow dehumanizing. We're simply raising the issue that there's a process for these things to be discussed at the subcommittee, in a context where, as my colleague said, we repeatedly see efforts by members of the Liberal caucus to try to reopen the abortion debate for reasons that I suppose they know.

I think it's important to underline that I agree with many of the comments Dr. Fry made with respect to the importance of looking at access to certain kinds of services. On the issue of the health of women during pregnancy and health afterwards, and the health of women and children, this committee should be committed to the principle of defending the immutable dignity of the human person, regardless of gender and at all ages and all stages. I think this is consistent with a belief in human rights. It is a commitment to the dignity of the human person and to upholding that dignity in whatever country people live in and whatever other aspects of a person's circumstances are present.

As I said previously, we have the issue of other legislation that this committee is supposed to be looking at. We have a subcommittee that's supposed to be dealing with these kinds of issues. We also had housekeeping issues that the chair indicated we have to deal with as a committee. Instead, here we are with a motion that we're told is not about abortion but that says abortion four times. It just reflects the fact that the government wants to move the discussion to these particular issues.

I think we could take a step back from this. We could frame a study that looks at some of the issues that Dr. Fry raised around access to health and do so in a way that reflects the choices of people and nations in the developing world.

I don't know if this is a fruitless endeavour, Mr. Chair, but I want to move that we table consideration of this until our existing studies are complete.

[The Vice-Chair, Bloc, Stéphane Bergeron]

Thank you, Mr. Genuis.

Madam Clerk, I assume this situation is the same as the one earlier.

[The Clerk]

Not exactly, Mr. Chair. Once the committee has finished its consideration, the motion becomes debatable.

[The Vice-Chair, Bloc, Stéphane Bergeron]

Does it take precedence over the one currently before the committee?

[The Clerk]

Yes.

You would have to ask Mr. Genuis whether his intention was to move another motion for debate.

[The Vice-Chair, Bloc, Stéphane Bergeron]

Thank you, Madam Clerk.

Mr. Genuis, would you be so kind as to clarify what your intentions were regarding debate on your motion?