Debates of March 23rd, 2010

Opposition Motion—Maternal and Child Health

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Madam Speaker, there is no doubt this is a crisis, with 30,000 children dying in the next 24-hour period and 1,400 pregnant women dying in the next 24-hour period.

I enjoyed the speech of the member for Ottawa Centre, as I always do. He brought some very insightful observations into the whole question of the motion that is before us today.

I wanted him to comment on Stephen Lewis's reference to this government's approach as crass political opportunism. This comes from a former UN ambassador, a deputy director of the UN's children's program, the special envoy on HIV-AIDS, a man of incredible depth and knowledge of what is actually happening in the third world, happening in Africa, who has characterized the Prime Minister's approach as crass political opportunism.

Does the member share the view that the government is simply trying to window dress its hard-right ideology?

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is important to note that Mr. Lewis is someone who was associated with this party but was also appointed by a Conservative government to his position at the UN. When he speaks on these issues, I think it is safe to say that he is speaking about the genuine issue, not from a partisan political perspective.

I think he is right. What Mr. Lewis has looked at is the numbers. He has followed the money. A government has to be called out, when it claims it wants to invest in maternal health and wants to be involved, and then on the other side of the equation it shows it is going to be cutting foreign aid and running in the other direction.

If the government wants to be credible on the global stage and says it actually wants to make a difference on maternal health, two very basic things have to happen. One is that it cannot put tags on the money. It has to be decided at source, in other words where people are and where the investments are being made. Finally, it has to show up with the money and not cut the budgets that are actually going to help it invest in helping in maternal health.

[Raymonde Folco, Liberal, Laval—Les Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Beaches—East York.

I rise today in Parliament to speak with the privileges given to me by the constituents of Laval—Les Îles as a parliamentarian on this motion, which calls on the Government of Canada to include the entire package of maternal and child health initiatives on the agenda of the upcoming G8 heads of state summit scheduled for June of this year in Canada.

I also speak today as chair of the Canadian Association of Parliamentarians on Population and Development, CAPPD, which has members from all political parties in both houses of Parliament. This association was formed in 1997 to promote and advance the signed commitments made by successive Canadian governments, Liberal and Conservative, to uphold the 15 principles outlined in the 1994 Cairo program of action.

The first principle is that everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person. Those rights are intrinsic rights set out in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. They are followed by the right to food, clothing, water and sanitation, equality, the right to reproductive choice, education for women and the girl child, the right not to be sexually abused, the right to feel safe from trafficking, and much more.

We are all familiar with these rights and those commitments, yet we choose to ignore them.

Years later, in 2000 in New York, Canada again committed itself to the millennium development goals. Further, in 2002, we gathered on Parliament Hill for an international conference of parliamentarians hosted by our own association, CAPPD, recommitting the Canadian Parliament.

On June 4, 2009, less than one year ago, legislators in the same chamber unanimously again recommitted Canada to reducing maternal and newborn morbidity and mortality at home and abroad through an all-party resolution.

However, I rise today to speak on a motion that, in the 21st century, should not have to be debated yet again in the Canadian Parliament, given the commitments we as parliamentarians have made time and time again, as I just described.

Canadian legislators are now preparing to host international parliamentarians on June 10 and 11 in Ottawa for the sixth annual international parliamentarians' conference. As we prepare for these summits, the international community is appalled at what is happening in Canada. Our CAPPD association is also a member of the international network of parliamentarians, which includes Asia, Africa, Europe, Latin America and the Caribbean.

Legislators all over the world are concerned that Canada is deliberately turning its back on women in developing countries. The government will deepen the divide for those millions of women who die each day in childbirth.

We have promised women and girl children a way forward out of poverty and hunger. We have promised life and security of their person instead of rape and violence. We have promised education and jobs instead of illiteracy. We have promised sanitation and clean water instead of open cesspools breeding malaria and other diseases. We have promised access to health services.

All of this is what we mean when we talk about gender equality. It is simply the right of women to choose life over death in childbirth because they can access what the majority of Canadian women take for granted. It is the right to development.

What we have committed to is about giving families the ability to choose the spacing of their children. What does this mean? It means that G8 and G20 summits can be global leaders who will put in place, under Canada's leadership, policies that provide women and men with the ability to practise responsible family planning as an integral part of healthy conjugal relationships.

High fertility levels increase the risk that a woman will die from pregnancy- or birth-related causes.

Even though all pregnancies entail a certain amount of risk, the chances of a woman dying mount with each new pregnancy. High fertility levels combined with limited availability of primary and obstetrical health services pose a mortal danger to women throughout their lives.

In the developing countries taken as a whole, the lifetime risk of maternal death is 1 in 76, while in the industrialized countries it is just 1 in 8,000.

We are speaking about the use of condoms for men, not only to protect women from contracting HIV-AIDS, but also to help protect them from unwanted or low birth pregnancies.

Along with good nutrition for women, well-spaced deliveries are an essential part of any strategy for avoiding premature births, low birth weights and neonatal deaths.

Studies show that if the interval between births is less than 24 months, the risk is considerably increased. It is imperative as well to provide girls with adequate nutrition and health care at birth, throughout their childhood and adolescence and into their adult years, when they are old enough to have children.

For every newborn child who dies, 20 others are injured at birth or suffer complications from premature birth or various other neonatal conditions.

It is about access to health clinics within a short distance of women's homes.

There are many harmful effects as well from gender discrimination, which is often passed along from generation to generation through cultural traditions and economic, social and political norms. Discrimination based on gender often prevents girls and women from acquiring an education, which, as many studies show, can reduce the risk of maternal and child mortality.

Discrimination often also deters women from seeking and trying to benefit from adequate health care and life skills training, which is essential to help protect them from sexually transmitted diseases, including HIV, insufficient spacing of births, violence, abuse and exploitation.

Discrimination can also limit their ability to earn a living once they become adults and can drive them into a life of servitude and subservience when they marry, often before reaching 18 years of age.

As I travel throughout the world, parliamentarians remind me that Canada has had an excellent reputation as a leader in upholding its international commitments. However, that reputation is slowly being eroded by irrational ideologies that are not grounded in any scientific research, human understanding or a clear understanding of the needs of women and their families in developing nations.

A 2009 Conference Board of Canada report said that our country now has the highest infant mortality rates in the developed world.

Within first nations, Inuit and Métis populations, these rates are even worse. According to a report on indigenous children's health published in 2009, infant mortality rates for status first nations remain approximately twice as high as general Canadian infant mortality rates. Infant mortality among Inuit is four times higher than for the general Canadian population.

Right here at home HIV-AIDS has a significant impact on aboriginal women. The presence of this disease significantly impacts their reproductive health.

The outcomes will be given to Canada's Prime Minister as he gets ready to preside over the G8 and G20 heads of state summits in Huntsville and Toronto. I am speaking here of the outcomes of our own parliamentarian summit.

We are, therefore, asking the House today to send a message to the world, to send a message to women in Canada and in developing countries.

The world is watching Canada as we get ready to host international parliamentarians in Ottawa on June 10 and 11 to again review the millennium development goals with an emphasis on maternal and reproductive health.

In conclusion, the Liberal Party is an unambiguous supporter of access to a full array of available options in the area of family planning and sexual and reproductive health, including contraception.

The Liberal Party's view on this issue is unequivocally supportive of access to the full range of family planning, sexual and reproductive health options, including contraceptions.

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

Mr. Speaker, over the last 40 years of successive Liberal governments that have promised 0.7% of gross national income would be contributed to developing nations, never, in fact, met those targets.

Earlier today, the minister said that she and the government could not support the resolution because it was anti-American and that it would reopen the abortion debate.

Would the member like to comment on the government's excuse that it cannot support the resolution today because it is anti-American?

[Raymonde Folco, Liberal, Laval—Les Îles, QC]

The short answer, Mr. Speaker, is that we are not in America, we are in Canada. Although the members and the ministers across think they are living in the United States of America, they are actually living in Canada. They have been elected by Canadians and I would like to think that perhaps they might look to what their own electors are thinking on this issue.

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I was not able to hear the member's entire speech but I came into the House when she started to mention the plight of aboriginal women and women in Canada having babies. I can agree with her because I lived on a first nations reserve for three years. I had my second baby while on that reserve and had to travel six hours away.

The member makes a very good point. It is important for our government to look at ways to help improve access to health care for women and men living in remote communities.

I want to come back to the motion. Does the member believe that the women who are in these impoverished nations where there is not access to adequate health care and where the government support is not there for nutrition and clean water, that it will help mothers and young children if we can increase and have a real concerted effort as the G8 group to help these women and children?

[Raymonde Folco, Liberal, Laval—Les Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, what our Prime Minister said in Davos was that he had chosen two of the MDGs, the millennium development goals, maternal health and early childhood, babies' health as the major focus, but all the other MDGs are interrelated.

What the hon. member opposite has mentioned about access to clean water, access to clinics not too far away from their homes, access to the right birthing conditions and, particularly nutrition, are all linked together.

What the Prime Minister has decided, and I support him on this, is to focus on two of these, but all the others are absolutely essential if women are to have babies in safe and sanitary conditions.

[Maria Minna, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to the motion but, as other members have said, I wholeheartedly wish that we did not need to debate it at all.

The government does not understand the issue of infant and maternal health in the slightest. In fact, the Conservative ministers have been directly contradicting each other on this issue all over the place. It suggests to me that they are trying very hard to fudge something that they are worried will upset the base that they represent. They believe very much that reproductive technology is taboo.

I was absolutely shocked when I learned that the Minister of Foreign Affairs stated, “This does not deal in any way, shape or form with family planning. Indeed the purpose of this is to be able to save lives”.

Does the Minister of Foreign Affairs not understand that the very thing he is denying women in developing countries is the thing that will in fact kill those women? He had to have known that by the government doing and saying that, it was literally condemning certain numbers of women to death. That sounds horrible and harsh but that is reality. That is what Mr. Bush did in America.

The purpose is to save lives but the government's plan will not save any lives. Instead, it will condemn women to death. No maternal health policy can be effective without proper family planning and the ability to space out pregnancies. Everybody in the developing world and everybody in our country knows that. As the former minister of CIDA, I have seen that in the countries I have visited and it is a fact.

However, the current CIDA minister then said, “We have chosen to focus the world’s lenses on saving the lives of mothers and children,” but not birth control. Does the minister really think she is doing her job? How can a development minister of Canada say that she is saving lives by denying contraception and birth control when she knows full well, if she bothered to visit any other developing countries and looked at any of the programs, that she is doing exactly the opposite? As a former minister of CIDA, I suggest that the minister resign from her job because she is not looking out for the people she is supposed to be representing and protecting in this country.

We all acknowledge that promoting infant and maternal health is an admirable one but when ideology trumps health policy and politics trump common sense, the Conservative government only accomplishes relegating Canada to the backbench on international development and causes us a great deal of embarrassment, which is totally unacceptable.

We need to look at some of the facts. Improving the lives of women and children in the developing world requires more than immunization, access to clean water, better nutrition and improved training for health care workers. All options must be made available to promote educated family planning and gender equality. All of these things are needed, but we need that and more.

The reality is that 80% of maternal deaths are caused directly by complications during pregnancy, delivery and after delivery. The four major killers are bleeding, infections, unsafe abortions and obstructed labour. Contraceptive services in developing countries could avert 52 million unintended pregnancies. I am not talking about one or two. This is huge. They could save 1.5 million lives and prevent 505,000 children from losing their mothers.

Investment in family planning could slash maternal deaths by 70% and cut newborn deaths by nearly half. Children without mothers are three times as likely to die before their fifth birthday. They often enrol in school late and leave school early. Spacing between pregnancies is important for the health of mothers. Two hundred and fifteen million women who would like to delay or avoid childbearing do not have access to modern contraception, 20 million have unsafe abortions every year, and 8.5 million need hospital care for complications but it is not available for 3 million of them.

The government is concerned that we are talking about abortion. Everybody wants to stay away from that word, but by denying birth control, it is forcing women to either abort or to die, and many of them do die, including their children afterward. That is the reality. I saw it on the ground, I have lived with it and I have seen the data.

We are dealing with that reality and for the government to ignore that reality because of its own personal ideological beliefs is totally unacceptable in this country. We have signed agreements at the international level with respect to women that commit us to doing exactly what the government is denying it is going to be doing.

Women who cannot access reproductive health services are more likely to obtain unsafe abortions and more likely to die as a result of pregnancy, childbirth or unsafe abortions. Ninety per cent of maternal deaths are preventable with better nutrition, but also by spacing out pregnancies.

The main reasons for infant and maternal deaths are the poor quality of care, with unsafe, outdated equipment, and the lack of midwives and trained professionals. I have travelled to many of these countries and have met with the midwives and have seen just one or two of them responsible for thousands of women, with very little medical equipment available. Yes, we need to provide more medical assistance and better nutrition and better health supports and to ensure there is not just one midwife for thousands of women, absolutely, but we also need to provide contraceptive and birth control assistance, because those mothers do not choose.

What I have been told sometimes by people is that the women should abstain. It does not work. Women in these countries do not have the option of abstaining, just as young women in some parts of Africa do not have the option of abstaining and end up with AIDS, which is a whole other issue that we are not even talking about.

Of course, contraception also helps in preventing deaths in the other direction. It helps women who are already malnourished, who are already anemic in many ways because they are very poor, and who are not able to withstand pregnancies that close together and end up dying in childbirth. That is why birth control has to be part of the program. It is unconscionable for the government to even consider denying and eliminating that. To me, it is nothing but pandering to a certain political level in this country and it is totally unacceptable from a government that purports to lead a modern, progressive nation in this world, which I consider Canada to be.

Regarding the cost of care, women bear the brunt of the fees for health care. Their reproductive roles mean they have the greatest need for health care. Even in places where health care is free, they still have to get to the facility and sometimes must pay for the equipment and supplies needed, which they do not have money for.

We made a commitment to the fifth millennium development goal to reduce maternal mortality by 75% before 2015, and if the government thinks it is going to accomplish that without birth control and contraception, then it is wrong. Even abortion, which is not something that anybody advocates for, is still part of the program and should be allowed. Those women have a right to choose and a right to survive. It is not for us to impose our situation on them.

Canada has provided long-lasting support for contraception and reproductive health services through CIDA. The government's ideology is getting in the way of good health care and gender equality, both here in Canada and abroad, where the government is now pushing its ideology. As members know, it has eliminated equality for women in this country, shut down offices that serve women in this country, and now is trying to impose its ideology on women abroad.

I could go on for a long time on this issue, but what is most important to me is this. If the Minister of International Cooperation and the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Prime Minister of this country know, and I believe wholeheartedly that they do, that without contraception and birth control being part of the program it will in fact condemn 500,000 to one million poor women in the developing countries to death, and are still prepared to put forward this kind of policy and have only backed off slightly after being pushed by the House and the media, it is unconscionable. It irresponsible and it is not Canadian. As leaders of this country, I expect better from them. I expect them to represent the values of this country and to support us abroad.

[Gary Lunn, Conservative, Minister of State (Sport)]

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the member a question about something I believe is unconscionable.

We listened to the member's rant and do not need to take advice from the Liberals on any of these issues. If they had a genuine interest in women around the world, why would they attack a previous U.S. administration in the motion, or the current one, or any one, for that matter, our strongest neighbour and ally? Together we have stood side by side in every major conflict.

Why would the member not keep the motion to the positive? Why did the member not focus his motion on what he was are trying to achieve? Why did he have to put in the motion an attack on a previous U.S. administration?

You can pick up the Globe and Mail today and see two previous U.S. presidents, Presidents Bush and Clinton, working side by side doing humanitarian work together in Haiti. Yet your party wants to attack a U.S. president—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I will remind the Minister of State for Sport to address his comments through the Chair, not directly at other colleagues.

The hon. member for Beaches—East York.

[Maria Minna, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member conveniently forgets that it was President Bush of the United States, not the current one, who has actually reversed the situation, who declared that money for families could not go to family planning at all, period. In fact, it only went to faith-based organizations that did not provide contraception or any of those services. He actually denied it.

Around the world, women in fact were affected. Other countries had to move into the breach and that is exactly what the government is doing. It is doing the exact same thing as the previous administration of the United States did. Otherwise, why put this particular caveat on this program? Why deny these women the right to birth control, which would save their lives? It is exactly the same ideology and practice. The government is following the same practice as the previous administration.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, one thing we can all agree on in the House is that the health of women and children, not only in this country but also around the world, is of paramount importance to all of us. The key to the member's comments and the comments of everybody in the House is to try to agree on what the most effective measures and means for ensuring that health really are.

To be honest I am happy that we saw a change of course in the House, whether forced on the government or it came to a conclusion on its own, that contraception and family planning is a critical component to ensuring the health of women and children, particularly in developed countries. I am glad we have joined together to recognize that.

I am wondering if the hon. member can comment on what percentage of GDP she and her party feel is necessary for Canada to fulfill its international obligations to help ensure maternal and child health in this world.

[Maria Minna, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I believe we all support reaching the 0.7% of GDP target that we had committed to some time ago. As a matter of fact, the Liberals doubled aid to 0.8% of GDP, and the Conservative government has just frozen the money, meaning that in the next couple of years the money will actually be cut. We were doubling aid money every year to get there, but the current budget freezes it. That is a reversal of policy, which will in fact result in a cut in the future. Therefore, we are not going to get there, not for a while.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, a lot of what the hon. member had to say about the care of women and children and so on is true, and we agree with it, but my simple point is that we are not going to get anywhere by misleading the House and misrepresenting the government's position. She continually misrepresents the government's position with respect to contraception.

We made it very clear that it is going to be part of the process at the G8, if the G8 wants to go there. We are not standing in the way of that at all. I wonder why the hon. member continues to misrepresent the government's position and thereby mislead Canadians.

The member has to raise the spectre of people dying to get people's attention. It is very disingenuous and not helpful at all.

[Maria Minna, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

First, Mr. Speaker, the spectre of people dying is not a spectre. It is true and very much a fact.

Second, the government only changed its version when it said, of course, it will be considering contraception if the G8 wants to go there. There is no such thing as “if the G8 wants to go there”. Canada should take a leadership role and not go in and say, “if the G8 wants to go there”. We know that the G8 is already there. It is Canada that has changed its position, not the G8, and the hon. member knows that very well.

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank you for the opportunity to address this issue and to inform the House that I will be splitting my time with the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.

The motion before the House deals with what we do with our international development assistance and our desire to focus on maternal and child health at this year's G8 summit. We will be voting against this motion, as it is a transparent attempt to reopen the abortion debate, which we said we had no intention of getting into. By voting against the motion we are proving that we will not reopen the abortion debate. In addition, the motion contains rash and extreme anti-American rhetoric that we cannot, as a matter of foreign policy, support.

As the members opposite should know, the mandate of the Canadian International Development Agency is to reduce poverty in developing countries, especially among the most vulnerable populations, including women and children. To do so, the Government of Canada has committed to making Canada's international assistance more targeted and effective, and to improve the reporting of results to Canadians. We are untying aid, we are becoming more focused and we have identified and are implementing thematic priorities that guide development work.

For decades it was common practice by donors to pledge their aid with strings attached, requiring that goods and services be acquired in the donor country. The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development estimates that tied aid makes international contributions 30% to 35% less effective. In April 2008, Canada fully untied its food aid. Agencies such as the World Food Programme can now use Canada's money and buy the appropriate food at the best prices in the areas closest to the need. In addition, Canada announced last September that it would fully untie all aid in 2012-13.

As well, for far too long, Canada's bilateral aid was spread very thinly among many countries and the results were very difficult to assess. That is why CIDA committed to investing 80% of its bilateral resources in 20 countries. Our intent is to improve coordination, achieve greater results and provide more targeted resources to those who are in need. Our countries of focus are developing countries where we think Canada can have the greatest impact, including a limited number of states in crisis and transition, like Afghanistan, Haiti and Sudan. Overall the government chose the 20 countries based on their real needs, their ability to use aid effectively and their alignment with Government of Canada priorities. We are also decentralizing more staff to the field, giving us direct access to our partner governments and organizations.

At the same time, other countries continue to receive Canadian development assistance in various ways: through humanitarian assistance, through multilateral channels like United Nations organizations, and through the support of Canadian NGOs with a presence in many developing countries.

To give our international assistance greater impact, CIDA is focusing its work on three main themes: stimulating sustainable economic growth, increasing food security and securing the future of youth and children. This last theme, children and youth, is central to the motion before us today. Economic growth is the key to self-reliance. There is no doubt that developing country economies need access to the global economy and to infrastructure to bring their products to market, whether in other parts of the country, the region, or internationally.

Regarding food security, Canada has shown consistent leadership in responding to food security needs in the developing world. The announcement of CIDA's new food security strategy on World Food Day last October 16 by the Minister of International Cooperation demonstrates our renewed and strengthened commitment to this critical issue. Yet food security is also one of the most important and preventable obstacles to alleviating poverty. That is why CIDA's food security strategy will focus on increasing the availability of and access to quality nutritious food, as well as increasing the stability of food supplies and supporting improved governance of the global food system.

To achieve these goals CIDA will concentrate its efforts over the next three years on sustainable agricultural development, food assistance and nutrition, and research and innovation.

CIDA's third thematic area is children and youth.

Canada recognizes that children and youth are key agents of change in these developing countries, but they also shoulder some of the world's most pressing challenges. Focusing on children and youth is one of the best ways to achieve long-term development and poverty reduction.

CIDA's aim is to achieve concrete results that will make a significant sustainable difference in the lives of children and youth. Special attention will be focused on young women and girls, because investment in girls and women brings great social and economic returns to these societies.

On Universal Children's Day last November 20, our government unveiled CIDA's children and youth strategy. It identified three paths for action: child survival, including maternal health; access to quality education, particularly for girls; and safety and security of children and youth.

Helping developing countries achieve their educational goals has been a key part of CIDA's work for many years. Going forward CIDA will promote access to basic education of good quality so that children can complete the first 10 years of school and gain the knowledge and skills they need to contribute to their families and communities.

CIDA's new strategy also includes measures to create a safe and secure environment for children to learn and grow in and become productive members of their society. All children have the right to be healthy, receive quality education and grow up in a safe and secure society. CIDA is committed to helping children and youth in developing countries to attain their full potential to become the strong, positive and engaged citizens of tomorrow.

Regarding maternal health, we will work with G8 members and partner countries, as well as with Canadian civil society and international organizations with expertise in this area to develop the best approach. A development ministerial meeting will be held in Halifax April 26 to 28 to further develop the initiative in preparation for the leaders' summit in June.

Fundamental to any approach is to ensure that our development dollars are being used efficiently and effectively in order to maximize and achieve tangible results.

Together, working with other nations and aid agencies on the ground where the need is greatest, we can make this an achievable goal. We owe it to our Canadian taxpayers and we owe it to the millions of women and children who need our help the most.

CIDA will refocus programming to support efforts that ensure that children have the best possible start in life by putting in place programs and projects that have a positive impact on child survival and maternal health.

[Keith Martin, Liberal, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague a couple of questions, but first, let us align her government's position with reality and this motion.

The reality is the government wants to reduce maternal mortality and child mortality. It wants a strategic and effective investment of taxpayers' money. In order to do this, we have to enable women and men to be in control of their own reproductive health. The only way to do that is to give them the necessary tools, such as condoms, birth control, and access to safe abortions in countries where it is legal. Failure to do that will result in the death of the mothers, because they cannot space out their pregnancies. They have children too early. They cannot have them too early or too late. They have to be in control of their reproductive health.

When mothers die, more than half of the children under the age of five also die. Also, for every woman who dies in pregnancy, 20 times that number sustain life-altering injuries, including obstetric fistula.

If my colleague believes in life, if she wants to be pro life, will she give women in other countries the same tools that women in Canada have, which is access to a full array of family planning options, including access to safe abortions where it is legal?

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the member mentioned access to abortions. Let me be very clear with my hon. colleague that we are not willing to reopen the abortion debate and we will not reopen the abortion debate. We realize that members opposite want to open that debate. The Leader of the Opposition said it. The member just said he wants to talk about abortion. We will not talk about the abortion issue.

This is about helping women and children in some of the poorest countries in the world who are dying. We want to give them food. We want to help them with clean water and with health delivery.

The motion that is before us is a rogue. It is transparent. The hon. member just brought to light exactly what those members want to talk about and that is abortion. We will not go there.

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

Mr. Speaker, several government members have been talking about the reason they will not support this resolution. They claim it will reopen the abortion debate and that it is anti-American. They have to quit getting Ann Coulter to write their lines for them.

The Conservatives are looking for excuses to vote against a resolution which is an eminently reasonable one, yet they say they support the goals behind it. I would ask them to re-read the resolution.

With respect to the supposed anti-American line, they are talking about what Bush did, but Bush is not there now. Obama is there. They seem to want to do more about what Obama wants to do than Bush anyway. That is the Conservatives' new-found position.

I think they are just looking for ways to criticize this resolution when they should be coming on board.

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that my hon. colleague from Manitoba needs to read the motion. Not only does it have anti-American sentiment and rhetoric in it, but it also refers to failed Liberal policy.

The member talked about supporting Liberal policy. The Liberals did nothing to help women. We have increased funding under CIDA.

There are many things in this motion that are incorrect. It is a transparent motion that wants to dredge up an old debate. Apart from that, it is a bad motion. If members opposite would read the motion, they would see very clearly that it is a bad motion and we will not support it.

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my background is in nursing. A lot of my time was devoted to maternal and child health care in many remote communities in Canada. I recognize the importance of supporting mothers in some family planning options.

I have read the motion which the Liberals have put forward. When I hit the third paragraph, I was absolutely astounded that they would bring our neighbours to the south into the debate. It is terrible and inappropriate to bring that part of the motion forward for debate.

I would like to ask my hon. colleague what would have possessed the Liberals to actually include the third paragraph in the motion.

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately the only thing that seems to occupy the minds of the opposition members is political expediency and scoring a political point. They do not really care what price has to be paid and at whose cost, they want to score a political point, and that is too bad.

We will stay focused on helping women and children throughout the world who need help.

[Rick Dykstra, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, we will be voting against the motion before the House.

This motion is an extremely transparent attempt simply to reopen the abortion debate which we have clearly said we have no intention of getting into. By voting against this motion we are proving that we will not reopen the debate. In addition, the motion contains rash and extreme anti-American rhetoric that we simply cannot support as a matter of foreign policy.

I am rising today to speak to this motion and more specifically, to outline how important food security is in the context of maternal and child health. Before I get into the details, let us first look at the present landscape.

More than one billion people around the world have too little to eat or are malnourished, which is the result of a number of factors. These include population growth, volatile food prices, transportation and agriculture costs, as well as a struggling economy and reduced global investment in food and agricultural development.

While we are focusing on this, the Liberals are focusing on something else. Instead of supporting the Prime Minister in his efforts to make the lives of women and children in third world countries better, the Liberals only see an opportunity to cause controversy where there is none and slam our neighbours to the south which they should not be doing. For the Liberals, this statement is simply business as usual.

For the men, women and children who go to bed hungry every night, a lack of access to sufficient safe and nutritious food can have a devastating impact on their health and severely limits their ability to learn in school, to earn a living and otherwise to live well on the basic necessities of life.

This makes food insecurity a central obstacle to reducing poverty and in keeping mothers and children healthy at the most critical points of their lives, for mothers during pregnancy and in the years that immediately follow, and for children during their early years of life.

Within the global context, Canada is among the leading donor countries committed to countering food insecurity. In fact our government has made the issue a major focus of the Canadian International Development Agency whose very mission is to lead Canada's international effort to help people living in poverty and to do so in a way that is efficient, focused and accountable.

Since the 2008-09 food crisis, the number of people living without access to sufficient, safe and nutritious food jumped from 923 million to over one billion, one-sixth of our world's population. The majority of these individuals are farmers living in rural areas, and of course, women and children.

This is particularly significant for two reasons. One, worldwide approximately 500 million small-scale farmers cultivate food for more than two billion individuals. Two, women account for a large proportion of agricultural production in the developing world and are therefore important agents of economic development and food security. We cannot hope to reduce poverty if the very individuals who bring food to the world are incapable of even feeding themselves.

From national and regional perspectives, we know that governments must strengthen their ability to address food security. We know as well that in the global context, difficult economic forces continue to aggravate the stability of food systems. The same goes for volatile energy crises which make food more difficult to access given that its production, transportation and distribution rely heavily on energy markets, and likewise for the unpredictability of a changing climate, including changing intensity and frequency of rainfall which can negatively impact and influence the global food system.

As a government our imperative is to help the world's poorest and most disadvantaged to overcome these challenges and to make it less likely for them to be affected by food shortages and constraints to agricultural productivity.

To help navigate these waters, the Canadian International Development Agency has a food security strategy that clearly outlines three priorities: sustainable agricultural development, food aid and nutrition, and research and development.

Most poor people living in rural areas earn their income from agriculture. In fact, according to the 2008 World Development Report, agriculture programming is two to four times more effective in reducing poverty than investments in other sectors.

CIDA's plans for sustainable agricultural development therefore include doubling agriculture investments by supporting national and regional agriculture strategies which support the ongoing efforts of the World Bank and the International Fund for Agricultural Development and supporting agricultural research.

These measures will translate into progress on many fronts. More small rural farmers will increase agricultural production and CIDA's partner governments will develop stronger policies, make their institutions more accountable and design better processes to provide stable, local sources of nutritious food.

In terms of food aid and nutrition, it bears remembering that worldwide more deaths are attributable to hunger and malnutrition than HIV-AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis combined. Nutrition is therefore obviously essential to early childhood development and to building a healthy population for the long run, given that malnourishment leads to serious illness, blindness, mental disorders and death among the world's most vulnerable.

In terms of addressing the food needs of these high risk populations, emergency food aid, social safety nets and nutrition are examples of key interventions that contribute to addressing food insecurity. CIDA's work to improve access to sufficient quantities of nutritious food and enhance the quality and effectiveness of food aid programming will result in more lives saved and better overall health for all developing world citizens, including mothers and children.

The final priority in the food security strategy is research and development. As investments in agriculture research and development have declined over the last 30 years, so too has growth in global agriculture productivity. Based on present estimates the global food production must increase by 70% by 2050. Investments in agriculture research and development are essential if production is to keep pace with increasing demand.

As a significant donor to the Consolidated Group on International Agricultural Research and through contributions from Canadian academia, private sector and non-government organizations, Canada is putting its considerable experience in agricultural research and development to use on a global scale by sharing knowledge and resources with developing countries. In fact, our government also contributed $62 million to the Canadian International Food Security Research Fund. We put our money where our mouth is.

The purpose of this joint initiative between CIDA and the International Development Research Centre is to increase the contribution of Canadian organizations toward solving global challenges regarding food security through applied collaborative efforts and results-orientated research in partnership with developing country based partners.

The work CIDA is doing to facilitate research and development within the developing world will give farmers in partner countries better access to the new technologies and specialized expertise they need in order for their farming operations to keep pace with the growing demand for food and also to withstand the ongoing effects of the changing climate.

The triple challenges of meeting the food needs of tomorrow, of staving off hunger today while doing this sustainably illustrates the enormity of our task and the need for concerted and coordinated action. This is critically important as we keep working to reduce poverty.

While we are here to debate the important issue of women's and children's health, the Liberals continue their history of making inappropriate and disrespectful remarks about the United States and this statement in their motion is just more of the same.

Our government has made much progress in trying to undo some of the damage caused to our relationship with the U.S. by the party opposite when it was in government over the past few years, yet the Liberals continue to undermine and continue to try to damage that relationship.

We are going to ignore the Liberals' provocations and continue to make progress on food security for at risk populations in our world. There is no doubt that food security ties itself closely to our government's objectives on maternal and child health. Without it, we cannot hope to keep mothers and children healthy at the most critical points of their lives.

[Keith Martin, Liberal, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, last year at the G8 meeting in L'Aquila, Italy, the Prime Minister signed on to allowing women and men to have access to a full array of family planning options. I will read the WHO, World Health Organization, definition of family planning. It states:

Family planning allows individuals and couples to anticipate and attain their desired number of children and the spacing and timing of their births. It is achieved through use of contraceptive methods and the treatment of involuntary infertility. A woman’s ability to space and limit her pregnancies has a direct impact on her health and well-being as well as on the outcome of each pregnancy.

In Italy last year, the Prime Minister signed on to supporting women's and men's access to a full range of family planning options. Does the member support the World Health Organization's definition of family planning and will his government support that definition and achieve those goals at this year's G8 summit in Ontario?

[Rick Dykstra, Conservative, St. Catharines, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the answer is quite clear. We do agree.

The hon. member makes a point of stating what the Prime Minister said in terms of the last time this came on the table. He stands by his word. We stand by our word. In fact, he is making it a priority when the G8 and G20 meet here in our country, in Toronto and Muskoka. It is a priority for him and this government.

However, to turn this issue of trying to help mothers and children in poverty across the world into some political issue that the Liberals feel will drive some sort of message or try to divide the House in dealing with an issue that is completely non-partisan is unacceptable. This is why we do not support the motion.