EVIDENCE

Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development NUMBER 021 1st SESSION 44th PARLIAMENT Monday, May 16, 2022 Le lundi 16 mai 2022 Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development CANADA [Recorded by Electronic Apparatus] EVIDENCE May 16, 2022 Committee NUMBER 021 NUMBER 021 NUMÉRO 021 21 16 05 2022 2022/05/16 11:05:00 House Of Commons Comité permanent des affaires étrangères et du développement international Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development FAAE Chair Mr. Ali Ehsassi 1 44

(1105) [ Translation ]

The Chair (Mr. Sven Spengemann (Mississauga—Lakeshore, Lib.)) :

Good morning, honourable members. Welcome to meeting number 21 of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development. Pursuant to the motion adopted on May 5, the committee is meeting to discuss the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria. [ English ] As always,

interpretation is available through the globe icon at the bottom of your screens, and for members participating in person, please keep in mind the Board of Internal Economy's guidelines for mask use and health protocols. [ Translation ] I would like to take this opportunity to remind all meeting participants that screenshots or taking photos of your screen is not permitted. Before speaking, please wait until I recognize you by name. When speaking, please speak slowly and clearly. When you are not speaking, your mike should be on mute.

A reminder that all comments by members and witnesses should be addressed through the chair. We are pleased to welcome our first witness this morning, Françoise Vanni, director of external relations and communications for the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria. [ English ] Madame Vanni, you have a five minutes for your opening remarks, after which we will proceed to questions from the members. The floor is now yours. Please go ahead.

Ms. Françoise Vanni (Director, External Relations and Communications, Global Fund To Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria) :

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair and members of the committee, for the opportunity to testify before you today. My name is Françoise Vanni and I lead the external relations and communications team at the Global Fund. I had the honour to testify before this committee three years ago in the context of the sixth replenishment of the Global Fund, and I'm really grateful to have this opportunity again today as we run our seventh replenishment campaign for the Global Fund.

Let me start by expressing my gratitude on behalf of the Global Fund and our partners around the world for your long-standing support and leadership in the fight against HIV, TB and malaria and in global health more broadly. Canada is a founding donor of the Global Fund and has always been one of our strongest partners. Our fifth replenishment, hosted by Canada in 2016, was the most successful ever at the time, and Canada was our sixth-largest donor in 2019 in Lyon when we broke that record by raising $14 billion for the sixth replenishment.

This was made possible by the strong, consistent support we have received from our allies in the Canadian Parliament, so thank you. In addition, in 2020 and 2021, Canada supported the Global Fund's COVID-19 response to assist over 100 low and middle-income countries. The Global Fund is now the primary funder for all the non-vaccine components of the COVID-19 response, including tests, treatments, medical oxygen and personal protective equipment for health workers, among others.

The Global Fund recently marked our 20th anniversary, and the programs we fund have helped save over 44 million lives since our creation in 2002. Also, the combined death rate from the three diseases has been reduced by more than half in countries where the Global Fund invests. This is proof that global commitment combined with community leadership can force deadly diseases into retreat and advance the 2030 sustainable development goals. Over the last couple of years, of course, the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic has been devastating, particularly for the most vulnerable.

For the first time in the Global Fund's history, key HIV, TB and malaria programmatic results declined. Malaria deaths, for example, increased by 12%, which is about 69,000 more deaths, the vast majority of them children under five in Africa. It could have been much worse without our agile response, but it's still devastating, and even more so knowing that these diseases are preventable and treatable. The direct cost of the war in Ukraine is another major human tragedy, and its knock-on impacts on lives and livelihoods around the world will also be severe.

They include food crises, energy crises, debt crises and so on. These will, again, disproportionately affect the most vulnerable—those already most exposed to HIV, TB and malaria. In that context, the Global Fund's seventh replenishment this year is crucial. We need to raise sufficient resources to regain lost ground and get back on track in the fight against HIV, TB and malaria towards the 2030 targets, while also building stronger systems for health that ensure countries are better prepared for future pandemics, which we know will come. Our target for the seventh replenishment is to raise at least $18 billion.

This is an almost 30% increase from the previous cycle because of the enormous setback the world has experienced over the last two years. With at least $18 billion, our technical partners, the WHO and others estimate that we would be able to save an additional 20 million lives over the next three years and avert approximately 450 million new infections across the three diseases. The stakes could not be higher. If we do not provide the resources that are necessary, then we must acknowledge that we are essentially abandoning the 2030 commitments.

This would be a tragedy that would cost millions of lives and harm economies in many low- and middle-income countries. President Biden, who is generously hosting the seventh replenishment in New York in September, has already included a $6-billion pledge commitment for the seventh replenishment in his budget. U.S. law requires that every dollar the U.S. commits must be matched by two dollars from other donors. Without a similar 30% increase from other major donors like Canada, for example, it will be difficult to raise the remaining $12 billion needed to unlock the full U.S. pledge.

Therefore, we are here today to seek your help to secure a Canadian pledge commitment that meets this target as we do not want to leave money on the table. The Global Fund has proven to be an effective and agile partner in development, as well as in times of crisis, whether by supporting low and middle-income countries in their responses to COVID-19, or by ensuring the continuity of life-saving treatment for conflict-affected populations in Ukraine—or, indeed, in many other places. It also a powerful tool to advance human rights and gender equity, which are at the very core of our strategy.

We have, for example, significantly increased our investments for adolescent girls and young women to prevent HIV in 13 priority countries where HIV burdens are highest. In these countries, the number of new infections has dropped by 41% over the past 12 years. Also, in Global Fund-supported countries, the percentage of mothers receiving treatment to prevent transmission of HIV to their babies reached 85% in 2020 compared with 44% in 2010. By focusing on breaking down human rights or gender-related barriers to health, the Global Fund ensures that no one is left behind.

Thank you again for this opportunity today, and I would be very happy to answer all of your questions. Thank you so much.

(1110) [ Translation ]

The Chair :

Thank you very much for your opening statement, Ms. Vanni. We will now begin our first round of questions. Each questioner will have six minutes. [ English ] We will go to Mr. Genuis, please, to lead us off for six minutes.

Mr. Garnett Genuis (Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, CPC) :

Thank you very much, Chair. Thank you for being here, Ms. Vanni. I appreciate the opportunity. My questions will focus on issues of maximizing fund effectiveness and understanding some of your internal processes along that line. To start with, there was a report out last month from your inspector general raising concerns about fund allocations in Liberia. I wonder if you could just update the committee on what is happening in Liberia and what the response has been.

Ms. Françoise Vanni :

We have, first of all, no tolerance for any sort of fraud or any misbehaviour across our programs. We fund programs in more than 120 countries, subject to three lines of defence. We have, obviously, our financial controls first. We have our risk department, which also oversees the allocation of the funds in countries. Then we have the inspector general, who is entirely independent, and when they investigate they we provide public reports.

We publish all of their reports, and then obviously we take relevant actions and also publish the progress in those actions that we take in response to any misconduct that may have been identified. You can find all of those reports from the OIG, as well as all of the responses made by the Global Fund, on the website. At the moment, I'm not on top of the details of the Liberia investigation, but this is the general process that we follow.

Mr. Garnett Genuis :

Thank you. I think it's certainly much to your credit that the inspector general identified these issues in Liberia, so I don't mean this to be a criticism at all of your overall work, but I wanted to raise the question. Maybe if there are further details, we would welcome them in writing. You spoke about efforts to advance human rights and gender equality. My understanding of your model is that it's not based on country selectivity. You provide funding essentially to all countries regardless of their policies. How does not having a country-selectivity approach mesh with pushing on issues of human rights and gender equality, or at least how do the mechanics of advancing those things work?

Ms. Françoise Vanni :

The way the Global Fund allocates the resources that our donors are providing us is through an allocation methodology that looks at the disease burden. Then obviously the countries that have the largest burden of HIV, TB and malaria get the most resources. Also, there's the economic capacity of the countries themselves to respond to the three diseases. This is the basic methodology through which we allocate our resources.

Then we have a strategy that guides the way we operate, and the strategy includes the understanding that in order to effectively fight against and end HIV, TB and malaria, we need to tackle human rights and gender barriers. Otherwise, we won't be able to end those diseases. That's part of the analysis of the determinants behind those diseases. In that sense, we push the boundaries, if you wish. We work with local partners. The Global Fund doesn't have country teams or offices.

We work with global partners, including communities, civil societies and other partners on the ground, to assess what are those human rights and gender-related barriers to accessing health care. We work with them to push the boundaries and ensure that if laws are impeding access, those laws need to be changed, or if the practice needs to be changed, then we work again with in-country partners to make sure that those are gradually removed.

Mr. Garnett Genuis :

Thank you. Just to clarify that point, it sounds like you engage in policy advocacy. You try to inform countries regarding a policy or other changes that are linked to combatting these diseases. If a country refuses to go along with you on some of those issues, will that impact their eligibility or availability for funding, or is it purely based on the earlier criteria? You mentioned that capacity and need determine which countries get which resources.

(1115) Ms. Françoise Vanni :

We do have a performance-based funding model by which, indeed, a country that wouldn't be investing enough.... We ask countries to also invest in the fight against the three diseases. It's co-funding, so we have a performance-based funding mechanism. When it comes to human rights and gender-related barriers, it's not a straightforward response, obviously, because, if we did have those as criteria, then we would leave a lot of people who need lifesaving treatment behind and put their lives on the line. It's more of a progressive approach, if you wish, trying to convince them and change, as I said, the policies and practice on the ground step by step.

Mr. Garnett Genuis :

With respect to corruption, is a possible consequence for countries that misallocate funding that you might direct funds towards other countries, as opposed to them? Is that something that happens? Is that a potential risk for Liberia, for example, or are the funding determinations made purely based on whether those countries are prepared to make contributions financially and their capacity and need?

Ms. Françoise Vanni :

We track funding requirements, and we push hard for that. We have a very good return performance in terms of differing requirements from countries. When it comes to corruption cases, we have a series of instruments that we can use. One of them is that we can change the recipients of the grants, because we have multiple recipients. We usually have a principal recipient for, say, the malaria grants. In most scenarios, it would be the ministry of health. Then you would have sub-recipients, which could be civil society organizations, specific branches of the ministry of health or others.

Normally we take remedial action, but, depending on the gravity of the facts and whether no remedial actions are being taken by the recipients, we can change the recipients, but still with the idea of ensuring continuity of treatment for the people we serve. We try to find alternative routes.

Mr. Garnett Genuis :

Thank you very much.

The Chair :

Thank you, Mr. Genuis. Thank you, Madame Vanni. We will now go to Mr. Ehsassi, please, for six minutes.

Mr. Ali Ehsassi (Willowdale, Lib.) :

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Ms. Vanni, for appearing before our committee. We're very grateful for the explanations you have provided. I should say right off the bat that the results have been quite impressive. Since 2010, I understand that fatalities and mortality are down 47%, and we are the sixth biggest donor overall and the second biggest when it comes to tuberculosis, if I'm not mistaken. Most recently, there was a 16% increase in our replenishment, so thank you for all of the hard work you're doing.

I do understand, however, that, because of COVID, there has been a bit of a setback and you had to come up with a new strategy, a new strategy that incorporates greater considerations for equity, sustainability and innovation. Even though I understand those terms in the abstract, I was wondering how that plays out on the ground insofar as introducing these programs is concerned.

Ms. Françoise Vanni :

Thank you very much for the remarks. Indeed we are quite proud that together over the past 20 years we have saved 44 million lives. It's quite remarkable and humbling. You're right that COVID-19 has been a shock for everybody—for countries, rich and poor alike, and for organizations and partners like the Global Fund. There are a lot of lessons to be learned. In a way, we were challenged but also lucky enough to be developing our new strategy for the next six years in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic.

We were learning literally by the day and feeding the new strategy through all of those lessons that we were learning. The new strategy reflects all of that, including the importance of community and people-centred health services. We've learned that very much through COVID-19. Without the communities on the front line and the community health workers on the front line, it's very difficult to fight a pandemic, whether this is an old pandemic like tuberculosis or a new pandemic like COVID-19. Communities and people are much more at the centre of the new strategy. It's similar with equity.

We've learned that no one is safe until everyone is safe. The most efficient way to respond to COVID was actually also the most equitable way to respond to COVID globally. We couldn't fix it somewhere and let it go somewhere else. Equity was very much at the centre of what we learned through the COVID-19 response and at the heart of the strategy. In terms of innovation, we have also the ambition of being much faster at developing and scaling up the introduction of new products in the fight against HIV, TB and malaria. We've seen how transformative that can be and how fast that can be.

When there is the political commitment, when there are various investments, and when there is a “burning platform”, as has been the case for COVID, innovation can be extremely fast and extremely transformative and just save lives. We will be investing much more in that space to accelerate progress on HIV, TB and malaria.

(1120) Mr. Ali Ehsassi :

Thank you. It's your estimation that the 2030 target that was set by the United Nations will be met, correct?

Ms. Françoise Vanni :

At this stage, we are off track. If we continue at the same pace, rate and way in which we are currently going in the fight against the three diseases, we are off track. We were already slightly off track before COVID, but COVID-19 pushed us far, far off track. There is the possibility of getting back on track if we take action now. If we don't scale up the investment and the innovation and the co-operation now and in the coming two or three years, then we will be off track. But if we do, we can reach the target, absolutely.

Mr. Ali Ehsassi :

Excellent. That's great to hear. In which region would you say progress has been most pronounced so far?

Ms. Françoise Vanni :

Well, it depends; 75% of our investment is in sub-Saharan Africa, because this is where the highest burdens are and the lowest economic capacities can be found. We have seen progress across the three diseases and across the regions, but perhaps I would flag that the disease that was mostly left behind before COVID, and that most suffered from COVID as well, is tuberculosis. The innovations have not been as active as they could have been. The treatments are still the old treatments, etc. Innovation has not been sufficient in that space. There are a lot of challenges in the tuberculosis space.

We saw that in the context of COVID as well. The two have been very much combined and have created more vulnerability for the countries with a high prevalence of tuberculosis, such as India, for example. I wouldn't say that a region is doing particularly better than another one, but we do have perhaps more entrenched challenges in the tuberculosis space that we need to tackle.

Mr. Ali Ehsassi :

Speaking of entrenched challenges, when it comes to HIV infections, just so you can elevate our appreciation of the many challenges you're contending with, could you tell us what some of those specific challenges are for HIV infections?

The Chair :

In the interest of time, please give a brief answer.

Ms. Françoise Vanni :

Yes. Very quickly, with HIV the challenge is mostly on the prevention side. We've made a lot of progress on the treatment side. We are able to save people's lives and allow them to lead healthy lives with antiretroviral treatment. On prevention we need to scale up our efforts, mostly in two areas, one being adolescent girls and young women. This is where most new infections take place in Africa, at an additional almost 900 a week. It's massive. Then there are the key populations of people who are most particularly vulnerable to HIV, such as sex workers, men who have sex with men, and drug users in particular. This is where we absolutely need to focus our efforts. Thank you.

[ Translation ]

The Chair :

Thank you, Ms. Vanni and Mr. Ehsassi. We now go to Mr. Bergeron for six minutes.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Montarville, BQ) :

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Ms. Vanni, thank you for being with us today and for educating us on the importance of these three ongoing pandemics. Although they took a back seat to the COVID‑19 pandemic, they are no less deadly. I listened carefully to your opening statement, and I was surprised that you gave the whole thing in only one of Canada's official languages. Feel free to answer in the language of Molière, if you so wish. Mr. Ehsassi referred to the negative effects of COVID‑19 on the fight against AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria. I just mentioned it as well.

Nevertheless, there is a positive side to the COVID‑19 pandemic, especially the development of mRNA vaccine technology. In early 2022, Moderna announced that it would be conducting clinical trials of an mRNA vaccine for AIDS. We also learned that BioNTech planned to conduct a clinical trial of an mRNA vaccine against malaria this year. Are you able to give us an update on how those clinical trials are going? Are any results available yet?

(1125) Ms. Françoise Vanni :

Thank you. I would, of course, be very glad to answer your questions in French.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron :

I'm delighted to hear it.

Ms. Françoise Vanni :

You're right. The devastating effects of the COVID‑19 pandemic on AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria have been well-documented. In fact, we have lost ground in the fight against the three diseases, which we have invested so heavily in over the past two decades. It is true, however, that some positive things came of the COVID‑19 pandemic. As just mentioned, the investments required led to innovation, so the momentum generated by the pandemic sped up the development of vaccine technologies and other breakthroughs.

Obviously, that gives us tremendous hope, since vaccines have yet to be found for all three of the diseases we target, even though they have been around for decades. The potential for new technologies to be deployed—like mRNA vaccines, as you mentioned—and the fact that a number of labs are now exploring those possibilities are very positive developments. As you know, clinical trials are complex undertakings that often take many years, so we will have to wait and see, but we are cautiously optimistic.

One piece of positive news, however, is the World Health Organization's recent recommendation of the first-ever malaria vaccine. That is one more tool in our malaria toolkit. Of course, it has to be used in conjunction with other tools because it doesn't have a high enough efficacy rate to allow for indiscriminate use. In any case, there is progress in the fight against malaria, and it could help us step up efforts in the next few years.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron :

Speaking of drugs and vaccines, in the late 1990s and early 2000s, Canada adopted Canada's access to medicines regime with the intent of making HIV/AIDS drugs available to developing countries. I'm not sure whether you've heard of the regime, but since its creation, only one country has tried submitting a request through the regime—Rwanda, in 2007. It says a lot that only one country has sought to use the regime. Recently, an initiative involving Bolivia and COVID‑19 also proved unsuccessful. Is that an effective way for Canada to make drugs available to countries in need?

Should we instead focus on waiving the patents for AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria drugs to pave the way for new medicines and expanded distribution?

Ms. Françoise Vanni :

Thank you for your question. I don't know enough about the regime you mentioned. Nevertheless, generally speaking, the Global Fund partnership is an excellent tool, because we can sit down with the board and talk about which tools are working and which ones aren't as effective in relation to implementing countries. Those partners can also help us adjust our mechanisms. I don't know the situation with the specific regime you brought up, but on our end, we have set up something I think is very useful, the pooled procurement mechanism.

Through the mechanism, we are able to provide high-quality medicines to the countries we invest in and support, to prevent the use of counterfeit drugs or products that do not meet the necessary quality standards. Of course, the mechanism also gives us the ability to negotiate prices. The Global Fund's scope of activity gives us some influence so that we can bring down prices, whether for AIDS, tuberculosis or malaria drugs, or COVID‑19 antigen tests. Our pooled procurement mechanism makes it easier to access quality-assured medicines at lower prices.

As mentioned earlier, it also helps mitigate corruption risks in the supply chain.

(1130) The Chair :

Thank you, Ms. Vanni and Mr. Bergeron. [ English ] It's to Ms. McPherson, please, for six minutes.

Ms. Heather McPherson (Edmonton Strathcona, NDP) :

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Ms. Vanni, I would also like to thank you for joining us today. It's such a pleasure to have you here. I want to thank you and your whole team for the incredible work you do around the world. I think what I'll start with is just that we're, of course, very happy that the Canadian government did have the replenishment of $930 million for the 2020-22 period. Of course, that period is ending now. We are looking at the replenishment of the fund. What do you require from Canada? What is the timeline that you would like to see that happen within?

Ms. Françoise Vanni :

Thank you very much for your kind words. We are at the moment implementing the funds that we raised in the sixth replenishment. It's not over, and thank you, Canada, again, for your very robust pledge. Implementation is ongoing. Indeed, we have never deployed as many resources in the past. It's really been a scale-up of the Global Fund supports for low and medium-income countries in the fight against these three diseases, let alone COVID.

That being said, this year we aim to raise at least $18 billion ahead of and at the pledging conference, which is being scheduled by President Biden for September in New York, the date still to be seen. This money would be made available to countries. We will be negotiating the grants next year, 2023. Then they will be implementing such grants in the period from 2024 to 2026. This is how it works. We raise money in one year; we negotiate for one year; and we implement in the following three years, more or less.

With regard to the mobilization on the Canadian side, we thought it would be really interesting to explore the IAS conference as a potential platform for Canada to express its commitment and potentially announce its pledge. That would set up the momentum and show the commitment ahead of the New York pledging conference later in September.

Ms. Heather McPherson :

What amount would be needed from us? This is an opportunity for you to speak to the Parliament of Canada. What would you like us to pledge? What would that number be?

Ms. Françoise Vanni :

Thank you. In fact, what I tried to explain at the beginning is that the $18 billion target represents an increase of 30%, roughly, compared with the sixth replenishment. That 30% is not because we have suddenly become more expensive. In fact, we have very low operating costs. For your information, 5.2% is our level of operating costs; so it's very, very low. The increased target is because of the COVID-19 knock-on impact on these three diseases. This 30% increase is what our funding needs are. This is what we expect our major donors to consider as a potential pledge this time.

As I said, what is happening is that the U.S., as the host, but also as our largest donor, has already committed that 30% increase, with a commitment of $6 billion. If we want to unlock the $6 billion from the U.S., we need to find the other $12 billion. This is why it's so important that all of our major donors step up. If they don't, we won't be able to find the $12 billion and therefore will leave the U.S. money unavailable on the table.

Ms. Heather McPherson :

I think we can all agree at this point in time, coming out of COVID-19, that this is not a situation we want to be in. Realistically, the quicker Canada can make that pledge of 30% more than the 2020–22 pledge, it would be really really extremely helpful to the organization and to saving the lives of countless people around the world. I have a concern, as somebody who has worked in international development for some time. We have heard that the countries will be allowed to use their vaccines as part of the calculation for official development assistance.

This would mean that there could be less money within that pot for actual development work going forward. Knowing where we are and knowing the gains we've lost over the past two to three years, it would be devastating for development around the world, particularly with the food shortages we're seeing out of Ukraine and many other contributing factors. Can you talk a bit about what that would look like if ODA was reduced because vaccines were included in the calculation?

(1135) Ms. Françoise Vanni :

That's a very daunting question, because what we are facing at the moment is a false dilemma. On one hand, we're going to stick to our 2030 targets, the long-term sustainable development goals, for which we need sustained funding from donor countries, and also sustained commitments from implementing countries. On the other hand, we have crises that we need to urgently respond to: COVID-19, Ukraine, Afghanistan and many others.

This is a false dilemma, because if we jump into responding to one crisis after the other—you could add the climate crisis to that list—at the expense of sustaining of the long-term investment that is needed to reach the targets, what we will be doing is laying the groundwork for future crises. If we think about the 2030 targets as our compass, we really need to make sure that this ODA funding or other funding mechanisms—I don't know which ones at this stage—are at the right level to address both challenges at the same time. Otherwise, we will go backward. Indeed, we already are going backward.

Going backward is much more costly. It costs more in lives, but also in dollars.

Ms. Heather McPherson :

Yes. Mr. Beasley from the World Health Organization said that we will pay a thousand times more if we don't deal with this appropriately now. Thank you so much.

The Chair :

Thank you very much, Ms. McPherson. Thank you, Ms. Vanni. Colleagues, we have time, because everyone adhered to the time limits very closely today. Thank you. We have time for a full second round. The first allotment is for five minutes to Mr. Chong. Please go ahead.

Hon. Michael Chong (Wellington—Halton Hills, CPC) :

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Madame Vanni, for appearing in front of our committee. The Global Fund is looking for $1.2 billion over three years from the Canadian government for its replenishment. Is that correct?

Ms. Françoise Vanni :

Yes.

Hon. Michael Chong :

Have you had discussions with Canadian government officials about this replenishment, the $1.2 billion request?

Ms. Françoise Vanni :

Not only have we had discussions with the Canadian government, but the Canadian government sits on our board. We are always discussing it with the board member and others, including through our governance. We have basically discussed in depth the strategy of the Global Fund. The strategy was designed and approved by our board. The strategy says we stick to our 2030 targets and to our commitments—to our mandate, if you wish—to end AIDS, TB and malaria by 2030. Based on that, we've calculated the funding needs over the next three years in order to be back on track to reach those targets.

Those calculations were made by technical partners, not by us, based on their global plans. That gives us the $18 billion target for the Global Fund, which represents a 30% increase. This was discussed with the Canadian board member and the Canadian government as the basic requirement in order to get back on track. To give you an idea, that $18 billion still leaves $28 billion unfunded in the global plans to end HIV, TB and malaria by 2030. It's not a very ambitious target. It leaves a lot of funding needs still unmet if we are to meet the 2030 targets.

Yes, we have discussed that, but we have, obviously, not come to a conclusion when it comes to the Canadian commitment.

Hon. Michael Chong :

You indicated that Canada's board member is supportive of the overall strategy, including the $1.2-billion request from the Canadian government. Is that correct?

Ms. Françoise Vanni :

Canada adopted the strategy alongside the other board members. We haven't had a formal discussion yet when it comes to the target.

Hon. Michael Chong :

Okay, so we don't know if they're going to support this request.

Ms. Françoise Vanni :

We don't know yet. We will need all of your support for that.

Hon. Michael Chong :

Yes. Thank you. You mentioned that while there's been a significant decline in HIV/AIDS mortality in recent years, there hasn't been a commensurate decline in HIV/AIDS infections. Can you tell us what challenges there are in trying to reduce infections?

(1140) Ms. Françoise Vanni :

That's a very good question. That's the beauty of innovations, right? When we found the antiretroviral treatments and were able to make them available equitably to all people who needed them, we made a huge step forward in the fight against the disease. Where we are struggling is indeed in stopping new infections from happening. Obviously that means we will always have a large population of people who would need ARV treatment for life going forward, and this is not a good prospect. The key challenges are discrimination, criminalization, gender inequity, poverty and vulnerability.

These are all factors that drive new HIV infections, very clearly. This is why I was referring at the beginning to our investment in breaking down barriers to health and our focus on gender.

Hon. Michael Chong :

Could you elaborate a bit more on something you mentioned earlier? There seems to be a disproportionate number of adolescent girls in sub-Saharan Africa who are being infected with HIV/AIDS. Could you tell us why that is?

Ms. Françoise Vanni :

Yes. Actually, the majority of new infections in Africa come from adolescent girls and young women. Between 15 and 24 years old, they are twice as likely to get HIV compared with their male peers. As I said, vulnerability factors include gender-based violence, early marriage, not going to school and things like that. This is why we have focused our investment in the 13 countries where new infection rates for HIV are the highest in Africa. It's essentially the southern part of Africa, if you wish, where we have multiplied our investments and very much focused on that area of work.

We are keeping girls in school and making sure we give them the possibility to have their own businesses and be more empowered economically so they can exercise more and more control over their lives. We also support organizations that provide peer-to-peer counselling among adolescent girls and young women. These sorts of activities go very much beyond the biomedical interventions, if you wish. We are very much working across health, education, economic development and youth engagement to reduce the new infection rates. We've managed to decrease those rates by 41% over the past 10 years in those 13 countries.

The Chair :

Ms. Vanni, my apologies, but I'll stop you there, if I may, in the interest of time. Thank you, Mr. Chong and Ms. Vanni. We'll go to Mr. Sarai for five minutes. Please go ahead.

Mr. Randeep Sarai (Surrey Centre, Lib.) :

Thank you, Chair. Ms. Vanni, I want to commend you and your organization. It has a very impressive record given the number of lives that are saved with the small amount of investment for the prevention of tuberculosis and malaria. You save millions and millions of lives in the long run, so I really commend you and your organization. I'm very proud of Canada's contribution towards that. It's something we're all very proud of. You mentioned that COVID had an effect that changed things, perhaps in your reach and delivery or in other factors. Can you elaborate on how COVID-19 affected your programming?

Ms. Françoise Vanni :

Thank you very much for your kind words and for the question. COVID-19 has impacted the programs in many ways. First of all on the offer side, health workers and community health workers were completely overwhelmed and under stress by the COVID-19 pandemic. Some of them were sick—we've lost many health workers—and/or couldn't access the health facility and/or could not cope with the level of demand. That applies obviously to frontline health workers, but also labs were completely overwhelmed.

That means that health workers or the labs that were usually used to fight tuberculosis, malaria or HIV were busy dealing with COVID-19 and could not cope with everything at the same time. The other aspect is more on the demand side. For example, you had a lot of people who had a fever, let's say, in Burkina Faso. Having fever, they understood that they shouldn't go out from their houses and that they should not go to the health centre because it could be COVID and therefore they could contaminate others. There are contradictory instructions.

For TB, similarly, if you cough you should immediately get tested and get treated, but if you cough and you have COVID you should stay home. It was very difficult for people to actually know what to do. Also lockdown orders prevented people from getting access to treatment or prevention services. We've seen indicators go backwards very significantly in HIV testing, which was very badly affected. TB testing and treatment were very badly affected as well. Malaria resisted a bit more because programs and actors on the ground managed to adapt, for example, the way they distributed mosquito nets.

They went door-to-door and therefore such programs were more resilient to COVID-19, but TB and HIV were very badly affected because of those different factors.

(1145) Mr. Randeep Sarai :

Are there broader ramifications for malaria infections that happened as a result of the increased malaria outbreaks?

Ms. Françoise Vanni :

Malaria also got worse. I mentioned the increased deaths, which means basically a child dies from malaria every minute as we speak, which is not acceptable really. We've gone backwards on malaria as well. The countries where malaria incidents are the highest were not hardest hit by COVID. Also the map of COVID-19 has impacted some countries more than others. Malaria may suffer from a couple of things. One is the ODA risk where money goes to other priorities, including COVID-19, but perhaps forgets other priorities that still kill millions of people, including children around the world.

The other one would be an illusion that because there is now a new vaccine, it's fixed. It's not because, as I said, the vaccine has an efficacy rate that is still modest. It needs to be deployed alongside other tools like bed nets, prevention programs and so on in order for us to be able to drive numbers down.

Mr. Randeep Sarai :

Were you able to assist with COVID vaccinations at the same places just because of your experience in giving vaccinations? Was there any coordination between the COVID vaccinations and your own organization with tuberculosis and malaria vaccinations?

Ms. Françoise Vanni :

That's interesting because we did work very much in coordination and indeed we were one of the founders of the ACT-Accelerator, which is the coalition that brought together all the global health agencies like Gavi, the Global Fund, WHO and others. They really came together to mount an entire end-to-end response to COVID-19, including all the different tools. The Global Fund has taken a leadership role in everything but vaccines because Gavi is taking care of that part, including through the COVAX mechanism that you know about.

We haven't been involved in vaccines ourselves, but we've been focusing very much on tests, diagnostics, treatments, oxygen, protective equipment, laboratory strengthening and all of those things. The coordination was there, but it's not that the Global Fund itself was involved in COVID vaccination campaigns per se.

The Chair :

Thank you very much, Mr. Sarai and Ms. Vanni. [ Translation ] Go ahead, Mr. Bergeron. You have two and a half minutes.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron :

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Ms. Vanni, you said that Canada was the sixth-top donor to the Global Fund and had a seat on the board. It's quite telling and troublesome, then, that the Global Fund isn't really aware of Canada's access to medicines regime. The regime was the centrepiece of Canada's strategy to help developing countries combat the AIDS epidemic by providing them with access to medicines. You talked about a pool of medicines provided by the fund's donor countries. Does Canada contribute to the pool? If so, what medicines does Canada contribute to help combat the three diseases globally?

(1150) Ms. Françoise Vanni :

Thank you. I will look into Canada's regime and get back to the committee with an answer. What I was talking about was a pooled procurement mechanism, not a pool of medicines contributed by donor or non-donor countries. Through the mechanism, the Global Fund is able to proactively negotiate with labs and suppliers of the various health products we need. Those products are then made available to countries in accordance with their requests. Countries determine their own needs. The Global Fund uses a funding mechanism based on each country's own priorities in combatting the three diseases.

Countries seek out use of the mechanism, and we provide them with the medicines requested. It's not a pool of donated medicines. Rather, it's a pooled procurement framework to negotiate better prices for high-quality drugs. I hope that answers your question, Mr. Bergeron.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron :

Yes, definitely, Ms. Vanni. Thank you. Also—

The Chair :

Thank you very much, Mr. Bergeron. Sorry, but you're out of time. [ English ] Madam McPherson, please go ahead for two and a half minutes.

Ms. Heather McPherson :

Thank you, Mr. Chair. This has been so fascinating. Thank you. I have a quick question. Knowing that COVID-19 is a new pandemic, which we have heard many times is going to be with us for the long term, is there any discussion about the Global Fund looking at including COVID-19 in the HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria bucket?

Ms. Françoise Vanni :

That is an excellent question. At the moment, we continue to deliver our COVID-19 response. Thanks to Canada's support, and other donors, we have been able to deploy an additional $4.3 billion to countries to help them fight COVID-19. That is ongoing. Funding needs, by the way, are not covered for the COVID-19 response coordinated by the ACT-Accelerator coalition, as I mentioned. When it comes to the Global Fund's long-term intent, the common strategy remains to focus on AIDS, TB and malaria, because that is our mandate. That is why we were created, and we really need to meet our commitment there.

However, it also includes the recognition of the Global Fund's role in pandemic preparedness. It's beyond COVID, in a way, recognizing that during the COVID-19 pandemic, the very same infrastructure and systems and networks that the Global Fund has been able to support in countries to fight AIDS, TB and malaria were the ones that countries used to respond to COVID—exactly the same community of workers, labs, supply chains, data systems and so on. In that sense, the decision made by our board was not so much, let's continue with COVID, because it isn't something that we can foresee.

We will, if needed, but it is isn't something that we can foresee scientifically. However, the board has agreed that we should play a more deliberate role in helping the world get better prepared for future pandemics—leveraging our investments in health systems. In that sense, the $18 billion target that I mentioned includes an investment of an estimated $6 billion in health system strengthening, which means essentially helping those countries get better prepared for pandemics. That is what health systems do: respond to the current pandemic battles and prepare better for what may come.

Ms. Heather McPherson :

We've heard that from so many experts on how to deal with COVID-19, so thank you very much. I think that's all the time I have.

The Chair :

Ms. McPherson, thank you very much. Mr. Duncan, welcome to the committee. Five minutes go to you, please. Go ahead, sir.

Mr. Eric Duncan (Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, CPC) :

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. It's good to be joining the committee today on an interesting and important topic. I want to ask some of my questions pertaining to the financing model. I have a couple of questions on that. In the replenishment, as it's noted, over 90% of the funding that helps the fund comes from governments, but there is an amount there from private sector foundations. In your replenishment, can you speak to the role that those private aspects have? Is that something you're looking to increase as well?

I look at that from a synergy perspective of the performance-based model that you have and transparency in terms of the inspector general in the system you have. Are you seeing more of an uptake or interest in that when it comes to funding opportunities as part of this replenishment? Is the private sector done at the same conference as well? Perhaps you can address those first.

(1155) Ms. Françoise Vanni :

Indeed, in terms of the funding model, we do have more than 90% of our resources coming from governments or sovereign donors—93% exactly at this point in time. The rest does come from private sources. In that space, we have a long-standing partnerships, and we also have very high ambitions for this replenishment. We are ambitious because COVID-19 has demonstrated to everyone, including the private sector, how important it is to invest in health systems and prevent outbreaks from becoming pandemics, as we've seen with COVID-19 and the COVID-19 crisis. To respond to your question, there is indeed more momentum.

We are very ambitious with two or three things with the private sector. One is targeting and mobilizing philanthropists, high-net worth individuals, and asking them to step up and to fight against the three diseases. We already have a few engaged with us, including the Gates Foundation and others. We want and expect more contributions from that angle.

We are also mobilizing the private sector and particular corporations for their know-how and bringing them onboard to bring particular innovations, tools and capacities they have to help us accelerate our work and drive innovation in particular areas where we are finding bottlenecks and we are not as impactful as we would like. For example, data management is one area where we have a number of partnerships with the private sector to help us leverage change. In that space also, the supply chain space, bringing private sector experience is very, very helpful.

Mr. Eric Duncan :

Can I ask if that is part of the replenishment conference then? I'm assuming that the private sector foundations are invited there, and that's where they make their pledges. I would assume from your answer that there would be a mix of cash contributions, commitments or pledges, but also in-kind contributions as well. Could you speak a little bit about that?

Ms. Françoise Vanni :

Indeed. There are two ways in which private sector partners can contribute. They can contribute directly in cash towards the $18 billion, and we very much hope to get such commitments, not only at the conference itself but before that, and the team is already working on securing early pledges in the coming weeks, hopefully. There are also pledges of what we call “innovation partnerships”, namely, bringing know-how to the table. That can also be announced at the replenishment conference. Those are very, very welcome. They do not contribute to the $18 billion, though, because they do not bring cash; they bring something else, but it's very, very valuable and can be announced there as well.

Mr. Eric Duncan :

I didn't start my timer, so I apologize, Mr. Chair. Cut me off when you—

The Chair :

You have about a minute, Mr. Duncan. Please go ahead.

Mr. Eric Duncan :

Thank you. We raised the issues of where some of the demographic concerns are with regard to HIV infections. One thing you talked about and a few colleagues have alluded to in their questions is focusing more on preventive measures, as you've acknowledged. Could you break down perhaps where this should be done? Is it with education? You've talked about raising awareness via education, but also perhaps maybe more on the medical side. Here I am thinking of prep and medications and different things along those lines.

What type of balance or direction do you see the majority of that preventative funding or effort going towards to reduce the number of new infections? Is it mostly via education to raise awareness, or is it purchasing medications that could help prevent infection rates from rising?

The Chair :

Please give a brief answer in the interest of time, Ms. Vanni. Thank you.

Ms. Françoise Vanni :

That's a fascinating question. The mix will differ from country to country. Essentially, prevention takes education, and awareness in particular, in highly vulnerable populations. This is where you need community leaders and you need peer-to-peer education. You don't need a formal doctor going into those populations. You need a particular approach, in that sense. You also need tools. You need tests, tests, tests, and in that sense, you need self-tests, for example. We need to scale up self-testing. This is one of the lessons we learned from COVID as well. These tools are really important, as is all the treatment, obviously, including prep.. There is still a lot to be done in that space.

(1200) The Chair :

Thank you very much, Ms. Vanni and Mr. Duncan. Our final series of questions this morning goes to Ms. Fry for five minutes, please.

Hon. Hedy Fry (Vancouver Centre, Lib.) :

Thank you very much, everyone. Ms. Vanni, you are doing a yeoman's job here, answering all of the questions thrown at you. I want to thank you for your knowledge and for spending the time to talk to us about this. I have only five minutes and I need to ask you a couple of questions. First, what about the old vaccine for tuberculosis? Does that work? Are we still giving them out? I don't know if we're doing that. Now that we have the drug-resistant tuberculosis, why is it we have it in only certain countries? Is there work being done on new drugs? This is a moving target.

As we well know, the tubercle bacillus is able to evolve as new drugs come in. What is your hope for tuberculosis? I also need to ask you about malaria and HIV, so perhaps you could make that short and quick. Thank you.

Ms. Françoise Vanni :

I'll try. Thank you very much for your question. Let me start by saying that tuberculosis is underfunded. We are not following the high-level summit on tuberculosis that was held in New York three years ago. It's underfunded. Across the three diseases, it's the one that kills the most people—1.6 million a year. Multidrug-resistant TB is a high risk for global health security. MDR-related deaths already represent a third of the deaths in the world related to antimicrobial resistance. That is very, very critical. There is indeed a lot of effort being put into the search for new drugs for MDR-TB. Indeed, this absolutely is one of our key areas of work.

Hon. Hedy Fry :

Malaria is still a difficult problem. I remember back in the fifties and sixties that the eradication of the mosquito was very important. In many countries, removing standing water and all of those kinds of preventative measures were very successful, but then so was the drug DDT, which is gone now. What do we have in order to actually kill the mosquito that carries malaria? The final question, which you can perhaps answer at the same time, is about HIV.

As you said, for AIDS we have the treatment and are bringing down deaths from AIDS, but for the actual HIV infections, I find it astounding that it is twice as high amongst 15- to 24-year-old girls. You gave the reasons, but what are we going to be able to do to change some of those things? I know that a lot of these girls don't even have access to contraception. If it's early marriage, what do they do when it's their husbands who actually bring the virus into them? What do they do? How can you change that? Those are cultural practices. Those are economic practices.

This is a very difficult thing to try to prevent.

Ms. Françoise Vanni :

Those are massive questions, and I can see the chair in front of me telling me not to take too long. On malaria, the interventions vary greatly between, for example, a high-burden setting like the Sahel or an area where the incidents are not too high but you want to eliminate malaria. Let's remember that our goal is to eliminate malaria. Sometimes this last mile, such as in the Mekong area where the rates are not very high, to reach elimination requires very focused interventions so that we can eliminate it. Then it's done. We don't need to go back to that.

So it varies, but one thing we've been investing in a lot is a new generation of bed nets that can be much more effective against the vector. We're investing a lot in that area. On HIV.... The chair is asking to me wrap up. It's a mix of interventions. We find ourselves investing in areas that are very far from biomedical inventions—giving money to girls so that they stay in school, strengthening girls' empowerment groups, running programs to prevent gender-based violence, supporting adolescent-friendly prevention programs and sexual education programs.

We're investing in all of that, but the only way we can do that is through partners. It's not the Global Fund that does that. It's working with communities through societal organizations, youth organizations and women's organizations on the ground. Through doing that, we can address the high level of prevalence in adolescent girls and young women, and similarly with key populations. That's the model we need to fight—

(1205) The Chair :

Dr. Fry, thank you very much. We'll have to leave it there in the interest of time. I apologize. [ Translation ] Ms. Vanni, on behalf of the committee, I want to thank you for being with us today. We appreciate your expertise and, above all, the important work you are doing. [ English ] Again, Ms. Vanni, our deepest thanks for your appearance today.

[ Translation ]

Ms. Françoise Vanni :

Thank you very much.

[ English ]

The Chair :

Colleagues, we have a few points of business to discuss. The first portion of the next hour is intended to be in public. It's the half-hour session to discuss a number of motions, including one by Mr. Chong. Then there is an in camera portion, where we have a number of housekeeping items as well. Hopefully, we will get to that in about half an hour. I would like to give the floor to Mr. Chong for the introduction of his motion, please.

Hon. Michael Chong :

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move the following:

That the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development supports the full participation of Taiwan in the International Civil Aviation Organization and its 41st Triennial Assembly to be held on September 27, 2022–October 14, 2022, and that this be reported to the House as soon as possible, and that the committee request a government response.

Mr. Chair, I am moving this motion because I think it's important that the committee voice its support for Taiwan's inclusion in the upcoming assembly of ICAO. I believe the health committee is moving a similar motion with respect to Taiwan's participation at the World Health Assembly. I think Taiwan has much to contribute in the area of international aviation as well as in the area of global health. I think it would be useful for the committee to adopt this motion. That's why I asked you to set some time aside for deliberation on this. Thank you.

The Chair :

Mr. Chong, thank you very much. With the support of the clerk, we will work on achieving an integrated speakers list from colleagues who are connected virtually and in person. Who wishes to intervene? I see Mr. Oliphant. If you're online and you wish to speak, just signal to the clerk by raising your hand virtually. Monsieur Bergeron; okay. It will be Mr. Oliphant and then Monsieur Bergeron.

Hon. Robert Oliphant (Don Valley West, Lib.) :

Thank you, Mr. Chair. It's nice to be back. I've missed you. I hope you missed me while I was away doing government business. I very much appreciate and support the intent of the motion. I think that there is unanimity around this table about the importance of finding ways for Taiwan to participate, not only for the benefit of Taiwan, but for the benefit of the world. There are meaningful ways that Taiwan can participate in international organizations. We have not only seen that through the pandemic, but previously as well.

There have been many options and opportunities for Taiwan's wisdom, expertise and contribution, which is not unique from the Asia-Pacific countries. It is significant, interesting and important for us to be in constant communication with Taiwan on their opinions, attitudes and insights. I'm absolutely supportive of the intent of the motion. I have one concern with the motion. That concern relates to our engagement multilaterally and our respect for the organizations of which we are a part. They have set their own rules for membership and concerns about how members become members, participate, etc.

I want to be somewhat sensitive to our responsibility as one partner in a multilateral organization, despite the fact that we have a particular interest. Maybe it is unique in this one, as an international organization housed in Canada. I think that we still want to add something to this motion that respects the right of that body in its own way of engaging in memberships. I am going to propose an amendment. The first amendment would be inserting after “participation of Taiwan in the International Civil Aviation Organization” the phrase “while respecting the membership requirements of the organization”.

I think that we, as a multilateral country, are a middle-sized power, and this is the way Canada operates best. We find ways to engage through UN organizations and other organizations and bodies that come together, whether it's on trade, health or anything else. This one's civil aviation. I think that we should at least acknowledge that. The insert then would be the words “while respecting the membership requirements of the organization”. That would be my suggestion.

(1210) The Chair :

Thank you very much, Mr. Oliphant. It is moved as an amendment, to be clear. [ Translation ] Mr. Bergeron, you're on the speaking list. Would you like to speak to the amendment, or would you prefer to speak to the main motion after?

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron :

I can definitely speak to the amendment, Mr. Chair. If that's what we need to do to make sure Mr. Chong's motion passes unanimously—and I have no doubt it will—I'm willing to support Mr. Oliphant's amendment. I believe it's important to support Taiwan's participation in international organizations where it can make a valuable and relevant contribution. That is the case with the International Civil Aviation Organization given how many millions of passengers transit through Taiwan every year. Despite not being a member, Taiwan adheres to most, if not all, of ICAO's regulations.

As you can imagine, if Taiwan remains outside the organization, it could eventually decide to stop adhering to ICAO regulations, and that could have huge consequences on air traffic in the oh-so-important Asia-Pacific region. I think there is unanimous agreement on the need to admit Taiwan to the organization. By the way, I fully recognize that each of the international organizations in question has its own set of rules for membership. Although I support Mr. Oliphant's amendment, I do have a comment.

We are being extremely cautious in the case of ICAO, but the Canadian government was not nearly as concerned about Taiwan's potential membership in the World Health Organization and World Health Assembly. It did not express the same desire to specifically recognize the membership rules of those organizations. Nevertheless, I do appreciate that an organization's membership rules take precedence, of course. For that reason, I support both Mr. Oliphant's amendment and Mr. Chong's motion.

(1215) The Chair :

Thank you very much, Mr. Bergeron. On the list, I have Mr. Chong and Ms. McPherson. Mr. Chong, over to you.

[ English ]

Hon. Michael Chong :

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I support Mr. Oliphant's amendment. Thank you.

The Chair :

Thank you very much, Mr. Chong. Ms. McPherson.

Ms. Heather McPherson :

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I would also like to reiterate that Taiwan has an awful lot to offer, and so I support both the amendment and the motion..

The Chair :

I'm just looking at the room and virtually. Are there any other interventions on Mr. Oliphant's amendment. Seeing none, can we pass the amendment unanimously? (Amendment agreed to [ See Minutes of Proceedings ])

The Chair: We're back to the main motion. Is there any discussion on the main motion as amended, either in the room or virtually? (Motion as amended agreed to [ See Minutes of Proceedings ])

The Chair: Thank you very much. We are still in the public portion of committee business. Are there any other items that members wish to bring forward? Dr. Fry.

Hon. Hedy Fry :

Thank you, Chair. I would like to bring forward a motion. I think you all have it in front of you.

It is: 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 —and I underscore “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.

The Chair :

Dr. Fry.

Hon. Hedy Fry :

Chair? Sorry, did want me to elaborate on the motion?

The Chair :

If you wish to, you can. Members have heard the motion as you read it.

Hon. Hedy Fry :

Yes, I'd like to elaborate on the reason for the motion.

The Chair :

Let me pause you for one second, Dr. Fry.

Hon. Michael Chong :

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair. Is Madam Fry moving the motion right now or is she giving notice of motion?

The Chair :

No, I understood Dr. Fry said that she is moving it. It had been put on notice. Dr. Fry, let me just confirm with you. Are you actually moving the motion?

Hon. Hedy Fry :

I am moving the motion.

The Chair :

Yes, she is moving it. It had been put on notice before. If you wish to elaborate, you still have the floor on that, Dr. Fry.

(1220) Hon. Hedy Fry :

Thank you.

[ Translation ]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron :

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

[ English ]

The Chair :

One second. I'm sorry to interrupt. We have another point of order.

[ Translation ]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron :

Mr. Chair, I see that we received three motions from Liberal members, and at first glance, they all look acceptable to me. I don't object to any of them, but it seems to me that the members are forcing the committee's proverbial hand regarding future business and scheduling. I have to tell you that makes me uneasy. Usually, our practice is to meet, to share potential study topics and to discuss them. Now, we have three motions before us solely from the Liberal Party. We weren't told that we had to provide topic ideas for future studies. This makes me uneasy.

Unless we come to a friendly agreement on how to proceed going forward, Mr. Chair, I have to tell you that I will be forced to vote against all of these motions. The way Ms. Fry is foisting this on the committee is not in keeping with our usual procedure for determining future business. I repeat, the three motions that the Liberal Party has put forward strike me as most relevant, but I don't think forcing the committee's hand on future business is the way to do things. In the circumstances, short of a friendly agreement, I fear we will wind up in a drawn-out debate that won't end well. Thank you.

The Chair :

Thank you for your comments, Mr. Bergeron. [ English ] That's not quite a point of order because members are free to move motions as they see fit, but it does go to how the committee will tackle its work plan in the future. [ Translation ] Your comments are duly noted, however. Thank you very much. [ English ] Dr. Fry, we'll bo back to you if you wish to elaborate briefly on the motion, and then we will open it up for discussion by members of the committee.

Hon. Hedy Fry :

Chair, I wanted to say that this motion was sent to everyone on the committee on May 6 in both official languages, so this is not new. The committee should have had an opportunity to look at it. However, I moved it because we need to discuss this motion at some point in time, as it has been duly presented. If there is no time to do it today, I will listen to the Chair's ruling on this, but I wanted to present this motion because it is extremely important. Chair, there are 121 million unintended pregnancies every single year.

Sixty percent of these unintended pregnancies end in abortion and 45% of abortions are unsafe and result in 7 million women a year either being hospitalized or dying from unsafe abortions. Two hundred and fifty-seven million women in the world are unable to get contraception, and the complications of pregnancy and childbirth are the leading cause of death among girls 15 to 19, and we see among girls aged 15 to 24, high incidence of HIV. The whole issue of the full spectrum of sexual and reproductive health and rights is almost an emergency. It's getting worse. COVID has made it worse.

I think when we realize that only 55% of women and girls worldwide are able to take and make decisions about their own sexual and reproductive health and rights, I don't think we can let this get any worse than it is now. I just wanted to lay that on the table, Chair, so that we can discuss this motion at a date that you deem appropriate, but I need to make sure that we take it seriously.

The Chair :

Dr. Fry, thank you very much. You are free to move it, and you moved it in a committee business session. It's completely in the hands of the committee as to how they wish to deal with it. We will make space if the committee agrees that it should be discussed. We still have some minutes in the allotted time, which was for half an hour of public committee business. I have a speakers list right now that includes Mr. Chong, Madame Bendayan, Mr. Oliphant, Ms. McPherson and Mr. Genuis, as well. I think it would be opportune given the time that we have to hear from those colleagues and to see where that takes us in the course of the time that we have allotted. Mr. Chong, please.

[ Translation ]

Hon. Michael Chong :

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I agree with what Mr. Bergeron said about Ms. Fry's motion. The committee's

schedule until Parliament rises at the beginning of the summer has already been planned. I think the committee members should all discuss the committee's schedule. We should consider not only this motion, but also motions that deal with other issues affecting the country. [ English ] I agree with Mr. Bergeron on this. I think this motion relates to the business of the committee, that is, what we're going to be studying over the next number of months. I think it should be part of a much bigger discussion about other issues that are facing the country.

The second point I'd like to make with respect to the substance of the motion is that this motion clearly is in reference to the recently leaked potential decision by the Supreme Court of the United States of the America. Clearly, that's what this motion is in reference to. It says, “given recent reports of international backsliding related to women's sexual and reproductive health rights”. Clearly that's a reference to the leaked decision that made the news both in the United States and in Canada.

If we are going to be undertaking a comprehensive study on global access to abortion, and that's being triggered by this wording of “international backsliding”, then we should invite the ambassador of the United States to Canada to appear in front of our committee to talk about this, if this motion were to be adopted. Personally, I think there are issues of much greater import than abortion when it concerns Canada-U.S. relations. Issues concerning trade and investment, a range of issues, I think should be a much higher priority in the bilateral relationship than the issue of abortion.

I don't think we should be calling a U.S. ambassador to committee to discus the matter of abortion as it relates to Canada-U.S. relations. On the substance of the issue, I don't think this is a matter that committee should be focused on. I think there are much higher priorities than the issue of abortion between the United States and Canada. But if the committee goes down the path of adopting this motion, which I don't think we should, then I will insist that the U.S. ambassador to Canada, Mr. David Cohen, appear in front of our committee to discuss the recent leaked potential decision by the U.S.

Supreme Court, because that's what the motion is referring to. Those are my two views on this. I think we should incorporate this discussion as part of a much bigger discussion about the future of this committee's business, rather than dealing with it as a one-off issue in the form of this motion. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

(1225) The Chair :

Mr. Chong, thank you very much. I have on the list at the moment, Madame Bendayan, Mr. Oliphant, Ms. McPherson, Mr. Genuis and Mr. Bergeron. Madame Bendayan, please.

[ Translation ]

Ms. Rachel Bendayan (Outremont, Lib.) :

Thank you, Mr. Chair. First, I'd like to respond to Mr. Bergeron's comments. Ms. Fry's motion was sent out on May 6, and this part of the meeting was set aside to discuss committee business. It is entirely appropriate and within the rules to put forward motions. I don't see how this could have caught anyone by surprise. What's more, the motion doesn't specify when the study would be conducted. Obviously, it's up to the committee to decide when it could undertake the study, if the members find the motion to be relevant. [ English ] On the issue of relevance, I would like to address Mr. Chong's comments.

Clearly he does not feel that women's sexual and reproductive health is of great importance, if I understand what he's just expressed. There is no reference to the United States in this motion. I'm reading it very carefully for the fourth time now. We have heard testimony and it is, in fact, a fact that at the moment women are being sterilized in China. The Uighur population is facing forced sterilization. Italy is also heavily investing in anti-abortion organizations. This is not a subject unique to the United States. If Mr.

Chong wishes to politicize the issue by bringing in an ambassador as a threat, that's fine. I do not think that we should dismiss the importance of women's health internationally because of any suggestion that our relationship with the United States is much greater than this one issue. Of course it is, but so too is the responsibility of our committee to address important international issues. This is the committee of foreign affairs and international development. This is a matter of grave concern internationally, which absolutely must be addressed by our committee.

What I would hope is that we would at least be able to vote on this motion before the end of this session and leave it to the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure to decide when exactly this study would be appropriate for discussion.

(1230) The Chair :

Thank you very much, Madam Bendayan.

Hon. Hedy Fry :

Mr. Chair, I would like to clarify this motion. I think Mr. Chong may not have read it. If he had read it he would realize that it is not all about abortion. The data that shows the rise—

The Chair :

I'm going to cut you off. One moment, Dr. Fry. If it's a point of order, fine. You're on the list to intervene. You can make that point in a couple of minutes once we've gone through the list, but it it's a point of order I'll take the point of order, but it doesn't seem to be. Let me go—

Hon. Hedy Fry :

Mr. Chong set up a straw man here [ Inaudible—Editor ], with misinformation.

The Chair :

You can debate that with him in future interventions. That will be on the speakers list. Thank you. I have Mr. Oliphant, Ms. McPherson, Mr. Genuis, Monsieur Bergeron and then Dr. Fry. Colleagues, I have to leave you a little bit early. What I will do is after a couple of interventions I will go to Monsieur Bergeron to make that he has a chance to intervene. He has agreed to take the chair for the remainder of the meeting, but I would like to give him the chance to make his intervention. Mr. Oliphant please, and then Ms. McPherson.

Hon. Robert Oliphant :

Thank you, Chair. On the process part, I just want to affirm what you said. What we are doing is debating a motion. We're not setting an agenda. It is very appropriate that notice of motion was given. It didn't even need to be, because we're in a business meeting. I guess it's not on topic, so it did need to be. We are debating that motion appropriately, but we are not saying that this is bumping other work that is currently on our agenda. This should still go to the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure. They can look at all of the work that we're doing, set priorities and come back to us with an agenda.

What we're doing today is saying that overwhelmingly the majority of Canadians support women's reproductive rights in this country. We want to bring it to this committee to look at reproductive rights of women around the world, as is appropriate given the mandate of this committee. I can't imagine we're going to get this work done unless we have a special two days of meetings or something, which is always possible, but I don't see that happening. What I see happening is our passing motions on work that we think is important.

That tells Parliament what we think is important and therefore tells Canadians what we think is important. When we get to scheduling it, that will be another discussion that we will have, in which we will look at all of the priorities of the committee. The last point I would make is that I don't know what was in Dr. Fry's mind on this. I'm not going to pretend that I always know what's in Dr. Fry's mind. What I do know is in Dr. Fry's mind is the well-being of people. I don't know whether it's related only to a leaked memo from the U.S. Supreme Court.

Also, when I travel in the world as I did last week, I see threats to women's reproductive rights everywhere—not just in the United States. I think that this is a big question that goes well beyond the American issue. I hope we can study it at some point. I'll be voting in favour of it, but also recognizing that it will go to an agenda discussion.

[ Translation ]

The Chair :

Thank you, Mr. Oliphant. Mr. Bergeron, before I give you the floor, I'd like to thank you for agreeing to chair the rest of the meeting.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron :

You don't have to thank me, Mr. Chair. I am merely doing my duty as vice-chair. That's my job. I would like Ms. Bendayan to know that I never claimed that we were caught off guard, far from it. That wasn't at all what I was saying. Ms. Bendayan will even be surprised to hear that Ms. Fry was very consistent and persistent on this issue. We discussed it for the first time back in December, when we began considering future business. We discussed it again in January. All that to say, I don't think Ms. Fry's motion has anything to do with the U.S. Supreme Court's rumoured decision. Ms.

Fry has consistently maintained her position, asking the committee months ago to examine the issue. In no way was I implying that Ms. Fry's motion took us by surprise. It didn't. I was merely pointing out that this wasn't how the committee usually did things. If a friendly agreement could be reached, and Ms. Fry were to agree to put her motion on hold, I would be entirely willing to revisit it later and support it. That is my formal pledge, because I believe that what she is proposing is worthy of our consideration. My concerns have to do with the form of the motion, not the substance.

My concerns don't have anything to do with notice of the motion not being given. On the contrary, Ms. Fry put her motion on notice months ago, so we were very much aware that she wanted the committee to examine the matter. However, I would like us to do things in a co‑operative fashion, as has always been the committee's habit. That is why I am respectfully asking her to hold off on having the committee consider her motion today. I am willing to discuss it before the end of the session, though, and let it be known that I will probably support the motion. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

(1235) The Chair :

Thank you, Mr. Bergeron. Could you clarify something, please? Are you moving that debate on the motion be adjourned?

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron :

No, it wasn't a motion to adjourn debate. I was simply asking Ms. Fry if she would be so kind as to hold off on having the committee consider her motion today. With that, Mr. Chair, I can take over now, if you like.

The Chair :

Yes, please. Thank you very much, Mr. Bergeron.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Stéphane Bergeron) :

We will now go to Ms. McPherson.

[ English ]

Ms. Heather McPherson :

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.

[ Translation ]

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Stéphane Bergeron) :

Thank you, Ms. McPherson. Go ahead, Mr. Genuis.

[ English ]

Mr. Garnett Genuis :

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.

(1240) [ Translation ]

The Vice-Chair (Mr. 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 (Mr. Stéphane Bergeron) :

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

Ms. Rachel Bendayan :

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

The Vice-Chair (Mr. 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 (Mr. Stéphane Bergeron) :

We are now back on Ms. Fry's motion. Ms. Fry, you have the floor.

[ English ]

Hon. Hedy Fry :

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.—

(1245) Hon. Michael Chong :

Mr. Chair, I have a point of order.

Hon. Hedy Fry :

I'm shocked that Mr. Chong—

[ Translation ]

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Stéphane Bergeron) :

Just a moment, Ms. Fry. We have a point of order. Mr. Chong, go ahead.

[ English ]

Hon. Michael Chong :

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.

Ms. Heather McPherson :

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

[ Translation ]

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Stéphane Bergeron) :

Thank you, Mr. Chong.

[ English ]

Hon. Hedy Fry :

Mr. Chair, I would like—

[ Translation ]

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Stéphane Bergeron) :

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

[ English ]

Hon. Hedy Fry :

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

[ Translation ]

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Stéphane Bergeron) :

Just a moment, Ms. Fry. Who had the point of order, Madam Clerk?

The Clerk :

It was Ms. McPherson.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Stéphane Bergeron) :

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

[ English ]

Ms. Heather McPherson :

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

[ Translation ]

The Vice-Chair (Mr. 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.

[ English ]

Hon. Hedy Fry :

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.

(1250) 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.

[ Translation ]

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Stéphane Bergeron) :

Thank you, Ms. Fry. Go ahead, Mr. Chong.

Hon. Michael Chong :

Thank you, Mr. Chair. (1255) [ English ] 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.

Hon. Hedy Fry: No, it isn't.

Hon. Michael Chong: Mr. Chair, that's how I read the motion.

Hon. Hedy Fry: And you're wrong.

Hon. Michael Chong: 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—

(1300) Hon. Hedy Fry :

I have a point of order, Chair.

[ Translation ]

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Stéphane Bergeron) :

Go ahead, Ms. Fry.

[ English ]

Hon. Hedy Fry :

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”—

Mr. Garnett Genuis :

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

Hon. Hedy Fry :

—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.

[ Translation ]

The Vice-Chair (Mr. 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?

Mr. Garnett Genuis :

No. Mr. Chong can continue. Thank you.

[ English ]

Hon. Michael Chong :

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.

[ Translation ]

The Vice-Chair (Mr. 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.

[ English ]

Mr. Garnett Genuis :

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.

[ Translation ]

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Stéphane Bergeron) :

Thank you, Mr. Genuis. Ms. Fry, go ahead.

[ English ]

Hon. Hedy Fry :

I have nothing further to say. I made my points. Thank you, Chair.

[ Translation ]

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Stéphane Bergeron) :

Does anyone else wish to comment on the motion?

[ English ]

Mr. Garnett Genuis :

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.

(1305) 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.

(1310) [ Translation ]

The Vice-Chair (Mr. 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 (Mr. 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 (Mr. 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?

[ English ]

Mr. Garnett Genuis :

Mr. Chair, I think we should adjourn debate on the motion until we're finished the work that we've already programmed out to do. Whether that's a debatable motion or not, I suppose, depends on the rules. My intention was to say, precisely, that we should finish the work we're doing.

[ Translation ]

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Stéphane Bergeron) :

What you just said isn't exactly what you said earlier. You are moving a motion to adjourn. Did you want to move such a motion, or did you prefer to continue debating the motion you moved earlier?

[ English ]

Mr. Garnett Genuis :

Mr. Chair, the motion I want to put forward is to table consideration of this until after our existing studies are complete. Does that entail a condition or not? Okay.

[ Translation ]

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Stéphane Bergeron) :

All right. We will begin debate on Mr. Genuis's motion. Does anyone wish to comment? I have Ms. Bendayan on my list. Ms. Bendayan, did you want to comment on Mr. Genuis's motion?

Ms. Rachel Bendayan :

Mr. Chair, in the few minutes we had left, I would have liked us to vote on Ms. Fry's motion. That's what I was going to propose, but I see that certain individuals would rather play political games. The issue before us today is important for both Quebeckers and Canadians. I really wanted the committee to vote on the matter. We've already talked about the motion to table the discussion. We could refer the motion to the subcommittee to block off time once our current studies are finished. Since committee members see this as worthwhile, I don't understand why we can't vote on the motion before us and leave it to the subcommittee to

schedule the dates for the fall. That's precisely what Mr. Genuis asked for. The opposition members are trying to prevent us from voting on the motion. That is sorely disappointing.

The Clerk :

Mr. Genuis has his hand up, Mr. Chair.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Stéphane Bergeron) :

Thank you, Madam Clerk. Mr. Genuis, go ahead.

[ English ]

Mr. Garnett Genuis :

Thank you, Mr. Chair. With respect to Ms. Bendayan's comments, I think it's legitimate for the subcommittee to discuss this issue. If this motion is adopted by the committee, then it is being highly prescriptive about certain aspects of the approach that the subcommittee will take. I suggest that the subcommittee consider this, along with the very interesting motion by Ms. Bendayan about the Wagner Group. Frankly, I didn't even know we were at the stage of proposing new ideas. There are obviously lots of other possibilities. We have an obligation as a standing committee of the House of Commons to prioritize legislation, period. I know we don't have legislation in front of us—

Hon. Robert Oliphant :

On a point of order, that's the second time, theoretically, it has been—

[ Translation ]

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Stéphane Bergeron) :

Mr. Oliphant, you have the floor.

[ English ]

Hon. Robert Oliphant :

—suggested that we have a piece of legislation. We have to respect the members of the House of Commons who will need to vote on that piece of legislation. It is not in order to bring it up at this meeting. I let it go the last time. We'll deal with any piece of legislation when it comes to this committee at the will of the House of Commons and we will do our work on that, not what has been done at the other place. That is its own work. We will do our work as a committee if and when we get a piece of legislation that could pass or may not.

(1315) Mr. Garnett Genuis :

On the same point of order, very briefly, we're talking about the forward—

[ Translation ]

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Stéphane Bergeron) :

Pardon me, Mr. Genuis, but Ms. Pereira wants to say something. Ms. Pereira, did you want to jump in?

The Clerk :

I just wanted to tell you that Mr. Chong wished to speak.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Stéphane Bergeron) :

Very good. Thank you. Go ahead, Mr. Genuis.

[ English ]

Mr. Garnett Genuis :

Mr. Chair, I wanted to comment on the point of order that we're having a discussion about the forward agenda of the committee. It's fairly reasonable to talk about the fact that it seems likely, to me, based on the positions of the parties, that we are going to have two items of legislation before this committee.

Hon. Robert Oliphant :

It could change. It might change.

Mr. Garnett Genuis :

I don't dispute that it might change. Lots of things might change. The government could call an election. It's happened before. There are things that could happen that we don't expect to see happen. If Mr. Oliphant wishes to vote against my bill to criminalize forced organ harvesting and trafficking, that's his prerogative, I suppose.

Hon. Robert Oliphant :

On a point of order, it is just as important for us to talk about things like organ harvesting in other countries as it is to talk about reproductive rights in the United States. There's no “get out of jail free” card for any country in this committee.

[ Translation ]

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Stéphane Bergeron) :

Mr. Oliphant, that's a point of debate. Mr. Genuis, are you finished with your point of order, or did you want to come back to your—

[ English ]

Mr. Garnett Genuis :

Can I respond to Mr. Oliphant's point? If there were piece of legislation dealing with the matters of this motion, I would be the first to say we should prioritize it. We can't ignore questions of the process obligations of the committee. If we're going to talk about the agenda of the committee going forward.... Mr. Chair, that's enough on the point of order. I think I had the floor, in any event, didn't I?

[ Translation ]

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Stéphane Bergeron) :

Please go ahead.

[ English ]

Mr. Garnett Genuis :

If there's consensus, we can proceed in whatever manner we like by unanimous consent. My suggestion would be that we adjourn the debate, send this to the subcommittee to consider, among other ideas, and we get a report back from the subcommittee that says, recognizing—

[ Translation ]

Ms. Rachel Bendayan :

Mr. Chair, I have a point of order. We already voted on referring the motion to the subcommittee. We can't vote on the same motion twice.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Stéphane Bergeron) :

Ms. Bendayan, Mr. Genuis's motion was found to be in order. That said, once again, there does seem to be some confusion since he referred to a motion to adjourn again. Is the committee continuing to debate the motion, or has Mr. Genuis put forward a motion to adjourn?

[ English ]

Mr. Garnett Genuis :

I'm sorry. Mr. Chair, we are debating the adjournment motion. Is that correct?

[ Translation ]

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Stéphane Bergeron) :

What you put forward is not an adjournment motion strictly speaking. You seem to be confusing it with a motion to adjourn debate. Madam Clerk, could you provide some clarification, please?

[ English ]

Mr. Garnett Genuis :

I'm sorry. Are you asking me or the clerk to clarify? My understanding is that we are debating an adjournment motion with a condition that I have put forward. Is that correct?

[ Translation ]

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Stéphane Bergeron) :

Is that correct, Madam Clerk?

The Clerk :

Yes, that's correct, Mr. Chair.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Stéphane Bergeron) :

The debate carries on, then. Go ahead, Mr. Genuis.

[ English ]

Mr. Garnett Genuis :

I think I've made my points with respect to the adjournment. I suggest we accept that adjournment. That will allow us to have the subcommittee do its work and then make a reasonable plan going forward.

[ Translation ]

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Stéphane Bergeron) :

Before I move on to the next speaker, I'd like the clerk to clarify something. My understanding is t