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.
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.