Debates of March 23rd, 2010

Opposition Motion--Maternal and Child Health

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I want to speak about the promise on maternal health and the G8. I am pleased to participate in the debate. I will be sharing my time with the member for Vancouver East.

This opposition day motion is specifically about the inclusion of family planning and sexual reproductive health options. However, I would like to talk about this motion within the greater context of maternal and child health and Canada's failure to and potential to act on this important global issue.

The Prime Minister said that the major project Canada would present during the G8 in June would be an initiative aimed at reducing maternal and infant mortality rates in developing countries.

Initially, the government stated that family planning programs would not be part of the initiative, saying that its objective is to save lives. However, that decision was reversed and it then said that family planning has always been considered an area of action.

The plan, as described by the government, has been presented as a holistic approach that focuses on clean water, vaccinations, nutrition and training for health care workers. However, we have no confirmation that it will include access to family planning and no funds have yet been allocated. I have some key statistics that I would like to share and which I hope will shed some light on this issue.

Access to contraception methods and reproductive choice are widely recognized as ways of saving lives. According to the World Health Organization, the first step in preventing deaths of new mothers is to ensure that women have access to family planning methods and safe abortion services.

Family planning could prevent 25% of maternal and child deaths in the developing world by preventing risky births that are too close together, too early or too late in a woman's life. Modern contraception helps fight the spread of HIV and AIDS by allowing HIV-positive women to space births for optimal health and access services to prevent mother-to-child transmission. Every year an estimated 74,000 women around the world die as a result of unsafe abortions. This could be prevented with contraception and access to safe abortion facilities.

By refusing to incorporate family planning into the maternal health initiative, the government is out of step with the international community.

Around the world, we are seeing actions, like President Obama's who recently revoked the global gag rule, a policy that barred any foreign organization from receiving U.S. funds for providing, advocating, informing or counselling women on abortion, in his first week in office.

In a 2009 white paper on international development, the United Kingdom called for safe abortion services where abortion is legal and an increase of one-third in the number of contraceptive users.

In addition, the EU has said that its action at the G8 will be based on the 1994 Cairo declaration, which aims to ensure universal access by 2015 to reproductive health care, including family planning.

Finally, we are out of step with our millennium development goals, a series of eight international development goals that all 192 UN member states agreed to achieve by the year 2015, a year that really is just around the corner.

Goal five states that we commit to improving maternal health by reducing maternal mortality and allowing people universal access to reproductive health. We must remember that this was agreed to by all 192 UN member states, including Canada.

I have a United Nations fact sheet indicating that almost all maternal deaths are avoidable. In industrialized countries, pregnancy- and delivery-related deaths are rare.

The rate of maternal mortality remains unacceptably high in many countries in the developing world.

Meeting millennium development goal 5, to reduce maternal mortality by three-quarters between 1990 and 2015, is proving be a major challenge. It is the MDG on which the least progress has been made.

According to UNICEF, the UN Population Fund and WHO, the World Health Organization, up to 15% of pregnant women in all population groups experience potentially fatal complications during birth, 20 million women each year. More than 80% of maternal deaths worldwide are due to five direct causes: hemorrhage, sepsis, unsafe abortion, obstructed labour and hypertensive disease of pregnancy.

In about 21% of the 500,000 maternal deaths occurring each year, women die as a result of severe bleeding. This complication can kill a woman in less than two hours. Control of bleeding, replacement of blood or fast emergency evacuation is needed to save lives.

This fact sheet also looks at what needs to be done. It lists a number of initiatives.

It suggests providing sufficient funding to strengthen health systems, in particular for maternal health, child care and other reproductive health services, and ensuring that contraceptive, medication and materials purchasing and distribution services are working well.

Dedicated national programs need to be established to reduce maternal mortality and assure universal access to reproductive health care, including family planning services.

We need to adopt and implement policies that protect poor families from the catastrophic consequences of unaffordable maternity care, including through access to health insurance or free services.

Access to contraception as well as to sexual and reproductive health counselling for men, women and adolescents has to be improved.

In addition, pregnant women have to be protected against domestic violence, and men have to get involved in the care of pregnant women and, more generally, in reproductive health.

We have known these things for years and yet we still have not seen action in a serious way.

When we look at the facts, one thing becomes obvious: the Liberals failed to assume their responsibilities to developing countries. In light of that failure, what assurance do we have that they will be able to hold the government accountable where maternal health is concerned?

It is time for action, not words. We support this opposition day motion, but we also hope that it is worth more than the paper that it is printed on.

[Kevin Sorenson, Conservative, Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, around the world countries are taking note of Canada. They are seeing Canada take a leading role in Afghanistan, not only in the combat mission but in the developmental mission as well. They are seeing the difference that Canada has made in regard to maternal and women's issues in Afghanistan. We have seen the girls and the women in schools where they had not been before. It is not only in education, commerce and the economy, but it is also in dealing with other health issues as well.

To that end, we gave notice that at this year's G8 meeting our government would be putting forward maternal and child health initiatives. We have chosen to focus this initiative on saving the lives of pregnant mothers and children under the age of five.

Today we have seen in this House an attempt to politicize this issue, to take it down a different trail and to try to use it as a wedge. However, this government is taking a leading role.

The maternal and child health discussion is not about what we are including or excluding; it is about simple measures that focus on saving the lives of 500,000 pregnant mothers who die annually during pregnancy and childbirth, and nine million children every year who do not make it past their fifth birthday due to the lack of quality health services, nutrition and clean water.

Does the member—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Order. The hon. member for Halifax.

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his question. However, with all due respect to the member for Crowfoot, I do not agree with him.

What is happening in Afghanistan is a combat mission. I do not have the statistics in front of me, but they have been mentioned in this House many times. The numbers are shocking when we look at the amount of money that has been invested in the combat mission that goes toward combat as compared to the amount of money that goes toward aid.

If the government's objective is really about saving the lives of women and children, I really do wonder how many lives are lost at the expense of that combat mission that is attempting to do the exact opposite of what it is actually achieving.

[Jim Maloway, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the member on an excellent speech on this topic.

Canada is among the wealthiest nations in the world, yet 70% of Inuit preschool children live in homes where there is not always enough food. There are many mothers in Canada who live in unsafe places, who are going without food, electricity or heat because of persistent deep poverty.

Now that the government is committed to catching up with other wealthy nations on maternal aid, the question is, when will the government commit to putting women and children first in Canada as well?

I would like the member to comment on that issue.

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Elmwood—Transcona for his insightful question about this issue.

It is an interesting thing, because we are talking about our millennium development goals. Some people ask what about Canada.

The first thing I would point out with the millennium development goals is we have agreed to put .7% of our GDP toward millennium development goals and toward foreign aid and development. When we look at the whole picture of our GDP, .7% is a very small amount. I think that is something we can achieve. At the same time we can invest in such things as a national housing strategy. Many people in our northern regions are living in overcrowded, decrepit housing. We could actually deal with maternal health and child poverty here in Canada. I think that both are achievable.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak to this motion. It is a very important debate. It is important that members of the House be able to express their strong opinions about this issue. The government's G8 maternal and child health initiative for the world's poorest regions must include the full range of family planning, sexual and reproductive health options, including contraception, consistent with previous governments that have stated that position, as well as all other G8 members last year in Italy. I certainly welcome this debate.

First and foremost, we have to insist that any initiative Canada takes forward must be based on scientific evidence as outlined in the motion before us today. That scientific evidence shows us that education and family planning can prevent as many as one in every three maternal deaths. That is a very significant statistic.

We are throwing around numbers and arguments and I hear the Conservatives claiming that this debate has been politicized. Nothing could be further from the truth. It is important that we stick to the facts and the scientific evidence about what needs to be done globally by Canada within the international community to prevent these kinds of deaths from taking place.

Looking at the statistics and facts that are available, it truly is shocking that more than 500 women die each year in pregnancy and nine million children die before the age of five. These deaths are entirely preventable if we set clear goals, objectives and outcomes and dedicate the necessary resources to ensure that very simple measures take place so that maternal and child health is made a primary priority.

For every woman who dies, there are 20 or more who experience serious complications as a result of their pregnancies. In fact, the World Health Organization has documented over and over again that the first step to avoiding maternal deaths is to ensure that women have access to family planning and safe abortions. That is a stated fact by the main UN body that monitors these things and does research. Anyone who disputes that is under some kind of strange illusion about what is going on in the world. It is important that we stick to the scientific evidence.

Family planning could prevent 25% of maternal and child deaths in the developing world by preventing risky births that are too close together, or are too early or too late in a woman's life. This is a very real issue for women in the developing world. They need to have the education, be aware of prevention and have access to family planning at a grassroots level.

This is not rocket science. These are very basic provisions in supporting and empowering women and ensuring that they can carry safe pregnancies, engage in family planning and have control over it. To me, that is probably the most important thing. It is emphasized by the Stephen Lewis Foundation that when women have control over their own bodies and lives, when they can make their own decisions without a lot of resources, and we are talking about there being minimal resources for them, we will see a dramatic transformation take place. That is what the motion is trying to get at today.

The Conservative government has suddenly found this issue and stated that its goal is to focus on maternal and child health. It is important to point out because credibility on the record is something that counts here. It is fair to say that the Conservatives have very little credibility on issues affecting women in the developing world. Let us not forget that they are the ones who did away with the terms of gender equality, gender-based violence, impugnity and justice when calling for an end to sexual violence in the Democratic Republic of Congo.

We in the NDP certainly welcome this interest that the Conservatives have suddenly developed in the health of mothers and children in the developing world, but it has to be on a comprehensive basis. It cannot be based on some sort of narrow ideological view. It has to be based on the scientific and factual evidence that is available globally, that has been developed by the United Nations, the World Health Organization and many other organizations.

It will undermine Canada's credibility if we do not advance these proposals in that broad way at the G8, if it becomes so narrowly focused with this conservative view, we become another embarrassment, just as happened in Copenhagen on climate change. I think Canadians feel pretty awful about what happens when we are on the international stage. The G8 is coming to Toronto. We have an opportunity to do something right, to express the will of the House and to do it in a comprehensive evidence-based way. I hope that is what will happen today.

Having said all of that, on the issue of credibility, a very stark question we have to ask is why the government is advancing this on the international stage, and yet here at home we still have appalling conditions for women and children in Canada. We are one of the wealthiest countries in the world.

In my community of East Vancouver, there are women and children who are living far below the poverty line. They are living in slum housing. They are not getting enough food to eat. They do not have enough access to community-level health care provisions. There is no child care, or the waiting list is so long and child care is so expensive that the children cannot get in.

While we deal with the situation internationally, we are compelled to focus on what is happening in Canada also. These issues are not mutually exclusive. They do not cancel out each other. We demand of our government that it address both issues, that it address poverty here in Canada and poverty globally. They are very much interrelated in that it becomes a question of where resources go. If we did have a properly functioning gender analysis, whether it is on the budget that was just approved or whether it is on bills that come forward, there would be a much better analysis and a much better allocation of resources, instead of the incredible ideological and political frame that we have had to go through time and time again with the Conservative government.

I want to say in the strongest terms that I support the millennium development goals. I support Canada's advancing this initiative as long as it is done in broad terms and it does not exclude family planning and access to safe abortions for women globally. I also feel very strongly that we have to set our sights on what is happening in our own communities. We have to recognize what is taking place in aboriginal communities. We have to recognize there are rural situations but there are also urban situations where people endure simply unliveable conditions which should not exist in this country.

Many organizations have done tremendous work on this issue not just over the last year or so but over the decades. I talked to a woman in the lobby a few minutes ago who told me she had been working on this issue for 30 years and she is very glad that this motion is being debated in the House today. It is very important that we recognize the work that is being done.

The Conservatives have somewhat reversed their position. Initially they were refusing to incorporate family planning into the maternal health initiative, and clearly they were absolutely out of step with the international community. I have to say that to me, it was a good lesson of what politics is about, to see the pressure both within the House and also in the broader community that took place, that forced the Conservatives to change their position.

I applaud groups such as Action Canada for Population and Development, the Canadian Federation for Sexual Health, the Federation of Medical Women of Canada, the Stephen Lewis Foundation and many others for the work they have done on this issue. They have made it clear that we will not tolerate a Conservative position that is so superficial it gives the illusion that it is helping women and children when in reality it is actually undermining the rights, freedoms and liberties of women and children not only in Canada but globally.

I hope the motion today will set us on the right course. Our leader and other members of our caucus have been raising this in question period. We will continue to press this matter until the Conservative government understands that if it wants to advance this proposal, it has to do it on the basis of supporting women's equality and women's rights and not denying women access to full services and programs, whether it be family planning or abortion. That is why this motion should pass today.

Business of the House

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to apologize to my colleagues who may have wanted to ask questions or make comments about the NDP leader's speech.

There have been discussions among all parties and I believe you will find unanimous consent for the following motion:

That, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice of the House, if, during the time provided for private members' business today, a recorded division is demanded on Bill C-241, An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act (removal of waiting period), that it be deferred to the time provided for oral questions on Wednesday, March 24, 2010.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Does the hon. member have the unanimous consent of the House to move the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Deputy Speaker]

The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

(Motion agreed to)

The House resumed consideration of the motion.

Opposition Motion—Maternal and Child Health

[Rod Bruinooge, Conservative, Winnipeg South, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I listened quite closely to the intervention of the House leader for the New Democratic Party's. I appreciate the background she brings to this debate.

As a politician, we are always seeking consensus. She references family planning and I know family planning can be defined in many ways. I know some regions in the world unfortunately define that phrase differently from the philosophy that she probably has. When I speak about this, I am referring to the Republic of China in relation to its one child policy, which unfortunately sometimes leads young women who find themselves pregnant a second time to be, as reported, coerced into abortions.

I am sure she does not agree with those international viewpoints and I am sure there is consensus between us on that point.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member's comments, but there has been a wealth of literature, some of which I quoted today, in terms of definitions around family planning.

The World Health Organization and the Canadian Federation for Sexual Health, which is part of the International Planned Parenthood Federation, make it very clear in their literature and research that family planning has to include a full range of choices available to individual women around their reproductive rights.

There is no question about this. I do not think this is even debatable. Major organizations under the UN and organizations in Canada agree. If we do not accept that, we are saying that we are somehow forcing our own opinion on the choices women have, on their liberty and on their ability to make choices about their bodies and reproductive rights. To me that is a fundamental human right for women. We have to stand by that.

Individual members may have individual views on this, but to me it is a matter of choice. It is a matter of choice on whether to have an abortion. If one does, it is something that should be done in a safe and medically sound environment.

Part of the debate here is to ensure we carry that as a very strong and clear message. Otherwise, we are saying that we do not really support women's equality or women's rights. Let us be very clear on that.

[Jim Maloway, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the EU has said that its action at the G8 will be based on the 1994 Cairo declaration, which aims to ensure universal access by 2015 to reproductive health care, including family planning.

As I see it, the government is basically trying to catch up with the rest of the developed world. However, the member for Winnipeg South is the leader of the anti-abortion caucus inside the Conservative caucus, fighting a rearguard action and trying to hold the government back.

We encourage the government to fight this rearguard action, come on and join the developed world in getting action on this cause.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, a lot of really good information shows that individual countries, whether it is the EU or Norway, have contributed significant resources. In the case of Norway, it has donated $1.2 billion or something like that, a huge amount of funds. These countries are living up to their commitment to the millennium development goals. We want to see that in Canada.

We know there are divisions within the Conservative caucus and likely within the Liberal caucus, but we have to get over that. This is about Canada's position globally. This is about women's health and women's equality. This is about the rights of women. We have to focus on that. The motion before us today helps us do that, and I think it has very strong support from the community.

We should stand very proud at the G8 conference and go there with a strong position. However, if we end up with this kind of lopsided Conservative view of what family planning is and what women's equality is, then we are taking steps backward. I hope that does not happen. There is a very strong message from members of the House today that if we are to do this, we have to do it properly. We have to put women and their rights first.

[Dave Van Kesteren, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this government is proud that Canada will host the G8 Muskoka summit in June, which will be followed by a separate meeting of G20 leaders in Toronto. The theme of the G8 Muskoka summit and for the Toronto G20 summit leaders is recovery and new beginnings. At the Toronto G20 summit, Canada will work with G20 partners to ensure that global economic recovery is assured and set the world on a path to strong, balanced and sustainable growth.

Over the past year and a half, many Canadians have felt the pain of the global economic recession. Through Canada's economic action plan, this government has taken decisive steps to protect incomes, create jobs, ease credit markets and help workers and communities get back on their feet.

Canadians know that the world's poorest citizens are also suffering the impacts of the recession and expect their government to show international leadership. The global recession threatens to set back many of the important development gains that have been made in recent years, including related to the United Nations millennium development goals.

Action within the G20 is helping to create the conditions for more sustainable growth that will help developing countries. Helping improve the lives of people throughout the developing world is something the G8 has been doing for many years.

The G8 has a strong track record in supporting international development efforts and efforts related to global peace and security. As G8 president in 2010, Canada will ensure that the G8 countries continue to deliver results in these two core areas, by advancing a pragmatic and a results-driven agenda for the Muskoka summit. Accountability will be the hallmark of this agenda.

In Muskoka, the G8 will follow up on past commitments to ensure that it delivers on its promises. Together the G8 will set focused goals for leadership going forward.

In Muskoka, Canada will focus the G8 agenda on areas where it has the greatest value added development in peace and security. These are central to the values and interests of G8 members and are areas where the G8 can make a clear difference.

On development, Canada will champion a major initiative to improve maternal and child health in the world's most vulnerable regions.

The statistics are shocking. Each year nearly nine million children die before they turn five and half a million women die in pregnancy and childbirth. Many of these deaths can be prevented with improved access to health care, better nutrition and scaling up proven interventions such as immunizations. We believe the G8 members can make a tangible difference and we will make this a top priority of our Muskoka G8 summit.

At the Muskoka summit, Canada will seek to leverage greater commitments from the G8 and other major donors to help developing countries respond to these challenges. The G8 summit will also focus on critically important peace and security challenge. The spread and use of weapons of mass destruction, including by terrorists, remains a key threat to global security and stability. This requires continued resolve and leadership on the part of the G8 and its partners.

Building the capacities of vulnerable states and regions to address peace and security vulnerabilities is another priority. This will include steps by the G8 to strengthen institutions, prevent conflict and better mobilize civilian and military capacities.

The G8 has a long track record of delivering results on development. We have done this by working in partnership with African and other developing countries to support their priorities. Making a real contribution to international development requires leadership and resources. The G8's collective contributions on development are unmatched.

Collectively, the G8 is a leader in contributing to development assistance. Leading by example, the G8 has been effective in leveraging additional financial and other support from other countries. For example, at the 2008 summit in Japan and then again in Italy in 2009, the G8 played an important role in helping millions of the world's most vulnerable citizens threatened by rising food prices in recent years.

At the 2009 L'Aquila summit, the G8 led 40 leaders and heads of international organizations in agreeing to mobilize more than U.S. $20 billion for agricultural development over three years.

Canada will participate in this new initiative, doubling our spending in support of agricultural development by committing an additional $600 million Canadian over three years.

As Canada continues to prepare for our G8 summit in 2010, we remain committed to working diligently with other stakeholders to continue addressing the issues associated with hunger and food security.

The G8 also has a strong track record in helping address the health of people around the world. In 2001, the G8 launched the global fund to fight AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria, and G8 countries have contributed substantial funds to fight these life-threatening and debilitating diseases. The G8 has made significant investments in addressing the health challenges experienced in developing countries.

However, significant challenges remain and the G8 can continue to show leadership in mobilizing the international community to meet these challenges.

One area in particular that cries out for action is maternal and child health. These two issues are captured under the United Nations millennium development goals four and five, with targets set for progress by 2015. They are the millennium development goals that are showing the least progress.

As G8 president, in 2010, Canada has decided to advance maternal and child health as a key priority for the G8 Muskoka summit and it is doing so with the strong and universal support of its G8 partners.

Canada is already very actively engaged in support for child health and maternal health around the world. Our priorities include malaria control, especially to protect children and pregnant women, and the scaling up of health worker training to develop high impact interventions to women and children.

We have long been active supporters of programs to support child immunization, including for polio vaccinations.

Given the close intersection of healthy children and educational attainment, we are also delivering on our commitments to fund basic education and to support school feeding programs. Canada also announced that three priorities will guide our development programming going forward, one of which is securing the future for children and youth.

The challenge of improving maternal and child health is immense and requires comprehensive solutions: additional skilled human resources, political support and strengthened national health systems. It is not something any one country can take on by itself. So, in Muskoka, Canada will mobilize G8 members and assume a leadership role in setting a global agenda for improving maternal and child health.

The G8 provides a powerful framework to accelerate action on these issues, bringing increased political profile, operational coherence, financing and accountability to collective efforts.

I will conclude by noting that accountability will be the hallmark of Canada's 2010 Muskoka summit. Canada championed the creation of the G8 working group on accountability because we believe it is important to deliver on promises made. When G8 leaders meet--

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Order, please. I regret to have to cut off the hon. member but it being 5:15 p.m. and this being the final supply day in the period ending March 26, 2010, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the business of supply.

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[Deputy Speaker]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[Deputy Speaker]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.