Status of Women Committee on May 10th, 2010

[Lorraine Fontaine]

I was talking about the threshold of intervention. Something is happening in terms of obstetrical procedures. They can be good for us, like a C-section for example. They can also produce the so-called “iatrogenic effect”, when procedures lead to other procedures. When 98% of women who go to the hospital are healthy, and when 26%, or 30 to 40% in the United States, and 60% in Puerto Rico, come out after undergoing a major surgery, which could have been avoided, we must ask ourselves about the system in which birth takes place. It is not a medical condition, but a human condition; the majority of women could live under normal circumstances with the support of people who know what they are doing. Doctors are losing their knowledge, on things like breech births, for example. So there is loss of knowledge, and our hospitals and our health care system are structured in a way that gives priority to medical approaches. There is even a cultural fear of birth in our society. We need to work on that.

I would like to add that some women's groups are excluded from this debate: aboriginal women, disabled women, refugees, and undocumented women. They live in Canada, so we should also include them.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Cathy McLeod]

Thank you.

We'll go to Ms. Mathyssen.

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I want to put a human face on what we've been saying. Ms. Jenicek, you said that the complications of unsafe abortions cost governments more than the cost of offering the safe option. I'd like you to tell me about those complications. What happens to these women? What is the reality they face? And please, I'd like to hear from all of you, if possible.

[Ainsley Jenicek]

It greatly depends on the kinds of unsafe abortion procedures used. I mean, some unsafe abortion procedures used around the world in developing countries include drinking bleach or putting excessive pressure on the abdominal area, which can rupture certain organs inside. Going septic, hemorrhaging, and perforation of the uterus are the kinds of complications that can arise. Some of them lead to death. Some of them lead to infection that can be long term. Some lead to long-term disabilities, such as infertility, for instance.

Does that sort of give you a better sense of the complications that might arise?

The number I found in terms of the cost of hospitalizing those five million women each year due to unsafe abortions is about $460 million.

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

That is if there is a hospital.

[Ainsley Jenicek]

Yes. Having sat in just a few weeks ago on a few abortions, prior to 15 weeks, in a feminist clinic in Quebec... These procedures are so fast and so cost-effective. If we can just get behind it and not do a menu--sort of picking and choosing from above--and trust the people on the ground, on what the women in these communities need, and sort of listen to them and respond based on their needs, that would be a much stronger, unified response.

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Talking about the response on the ground, one of the things we heard last week, from Katherine McDonald, in response to my question.... We have Canadian aid dollars. We have the G8. And Canada is saying that we're not going to support abortion services and that the others will do it. Who is monitoring that? The reality is that if you have a clinic that is receiving Canadian aid dollars, what happens when a young woman comes in and needs the procedure? What happens to that woman? Does that clinic tell her she's risking their dollars, so go away?

[Bridget Lynch]

I can speak to that a little bit. Even under the gag rule, if you're a health care worker in the field, whether there are dollars coming in or not--and it will be very difficult to describe dollars going in--it will be more at the level of who among the NGOs gets moneys than about the actual provision of care in the clinic on the ground.

You will have health care providers, in some cases, when there is capacity, who will provide appropriate care. If it's an NGO that isn't receiving funding to provide abortions, then there will be areas where there won't be care.

Women will die, and women will die if there aren't functioning health care systems. Ultimately, this is not our decision about who receives and who does not receive an abortion. We should not be involved in this discussion as a nation. That is up to the individual woman and her health care providers. I don't even want to say that it's up to the law in the country, because it is not. We all, as women and as people, have to get past this. It's ridiculous.

I'm seeing what is going on with the politicization of this committee. We're wasting this opportunity to support Canada taking a leadership role, including the provision of.... I've been sitting here for an hour and a half now, somewhat aghast, as I realize the division within this committee. What is going on here?

Being so absolutely, humanly... I'm asking the question. What is happening here politically? Are you really saying that in 2010 a woman should die because Canada said, based on politics, that we wouldn't be providing funding for her, when we ourselves, and our daughters, have that choice?

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Cathy McLeod]

I'm sorry. We're on to our next one.

Madame Boucher.

[Sylvie Boucher, Conservative, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Good afternoon, ladies. Good afternoon, sir. Welcome to our committee. It really is very interesting to hear you, but it is especially troubling to see the extent to which we are divided, as you said.

We are not really divided. We must understand that, even if we play politics, we are here for all women.

I would like to understand one thing. We know that, often, at G8 meetings, countries have major joint projects for which they give great speeches accompanied by great selling points, but we lack the willingness to see these projects through. In fact, for one reason or another, these projects fall by the wayside. Our joint projects fall by the wayside, which is not what we would like to see happen right now.

There is a consensus that transparency and accountability are issues when G8 countries make promises. When this initiative was launched, we also wanted to improve transparency and accountability to ensure that the G8 members would make smart promises in June so that countries would be able to keep them and could see them through together.

Are you in favour of Canada taking measures to increase transparency and accountability?

[Lorraine Fontaine]

Yes.

[Bridget Lynch]

I think this is one of Canada's strengths. The call for accountability must take place. We must be accountable.

The G8 has made promises. At the University of Toronto, they did a phenomenal review by country and by category of G8 promises made and G8 promises kept. Canada actually comes across pretty well. We were at the 70% level on living up to our G8 promises.

There has not been a system of accountability. This is where Canada is again taking a leadership role.

On the accountability piece, yes, government should be held accountable for their promises. There should be evaluations. There should be ongoing feedback to the people of the countries as well. This is one of the strengths.

[Sylvie Boucher, Conservative, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Good.

You talked about evaluations. Do you think that Canada should take a leadership role and ensure that the evaluations of promises made at G8 are transparent, but also that the promises are kept?

If we all make a commitment, it will not be an empty or fuzzy promise, but something that we want to see through. Do you think that the G8 members can reach a consensus?

[Pierre La Ramée]

The idea of a consensus and then accountability for a consensus is an interesting one, because it's precisely what was reached at the G8 last year when Canada committed itself to the consensus for maternal and child health.

On the basis of Canada being part of that consensus and then launching a major G8 initiative on maternal mortality, one would have expected transparency and accountability would dictate that there would not immediately have been questions and doubts about what a commitment to maternal mortality would include, in this case whether it would be reproductive health, or whether it would be abortion, or whether it would be reproductive health but not abortion. As of this point, in terms of transparency and accountability, it's still actually not clear what the position of the Canadian government is and how it defines its maternal mortality initiative.

[Sylvie Boucher, Conservative, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

I had another quick question.

Ms. Fontaine, you said that, even here, in Canada, we are falling behind medically despite new technologies. I am one of the statistics since I had bleeding, eclampsia and anemia. You are saying that we have fallen behind in maternal health despite the new technologies we have.

[Lorraine Fontaine]

Technology is available and it is important for you and the women who need it, but if we overuse the procedures and treat them as the norm, we start using them when it is not necessary. We do one procedure, which leads to another one and that can lead to death.

[Sylvie Boucher, Conservative, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Thank you.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Cathy McLeod]

That finishes our second round. We do have time for a three-minute round, and then we will have to go in camera for about five minutes.

So to start off for three minutes, really quick questions and answers, Mr. Garneau.

[Marc Garneau, Liberal, Westmount—Ville-Marie, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I am not sure if this will take three minutes, but I have two specific questions for Mr. La Ramée, along the same lines as Ms. Demers' questions.

Normally, at this time of the year, it seems to me that the IPPF would have received its financing from Canada based on past performance. If I understood you correctly, you have not received it yet. It's an important question, because if you had received it, it would indicate that the government supported International Planned Parenthood abroad and had not changed its position. That would, of course, be at odds with the discourse they are holding in the House of Commons at the moment, about not wanting to talk about it or deal with it. So that preoccupies me. Is this a shift in policy? Now, I think you are trying to be diplomatic here about not having received it, and there may be some bureaucratic holdups for it, but my first question is this. When would you normally, based on past years, have received your financing? I don't know your financial cycle.

[Pierre La Ramée]

Normally we should have received the funding by now--if not be in receipt of the funding, at least have received a response on our proposal.

[Marc Garneau, Liberal, Westmount—Ville-Marie, QC]

And you have not heard anything?

[Pierre La Ramée]

No.

[Marc Garneau, Liberal, Westmount—Ville-Marie, QC]

If you do receive your funding but it is some time after the G8 summit, that will say a great deal about whether or not this was really a bureaucratic holdup or not, or whether it was just something people didn't want to deal with until after the G8 summit. So like Madame Demers, I would very much like to hear if and when you do receive your funding.

[Pierre La Ramée]

I will keep you apprised.

[Anita Neville, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

Is there a little bit of time? One minute.

My question is following up on Ms. Boucher's comments or questions. How can Canada push for accountability when its credibility is suspect among its G8 partners? Do you have any comment on that?