Debates of March 23rd, 2010

Business of the House

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

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 Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

(Motion agreed to)

Royal Recommendation and Ways and Means Motions

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, on March 5, the Deputy Speaker made a statement regarding certain private members' bills on which a point of order had been raised during the last session regarding the requirement for a royal recommendation. One of these is Bill C-343 introduced by my colleague from Compton—Stanstead.

It will come as no surprise that I do not share the opinion of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons to the effect that this bill requires a royal recommendation. According to Marleau and Montpetit, the rule regarding royal recommendation is as follows: “Bills that involve the expenditure of public funds must have a Royal Recommendation.”

My colleague's bill would provide employment insurance benefits to victims of crime who are on leave for family reasons. These benefits could extend to 52 weeks.

The employment insurance fund, which consists of premiums paid by both workers and employers, funds employment insurance benefits. Just last week, the Prime Minister went to great lengths to tell us that the board that manages this fund is independent. In that sense, my colleague's bill would not be funded by public monies but by the premiums paid by workers and employers in order to provide benefits to workers, when necessary.

In closing, Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that I am extremely disappointed by the government's attitude towards this matter. By claiming that a royal recommendation is required, it is showing that it is incapable of transcending partisanship to come to the assistance of the families of victims of crime.

The House resumed consideration of the motion.

Opposition Motion--Maternal and Child Health

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

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour today to speak to this Liberal motion. We have a moment in time because we are hosting this year's G8 and G20 summits, a moment in time when we could have the most profound impact upon the health of the world's poorest than we have seen in decades.

The reason the Liberal Party has put this motion has to do with a number of comments made by the government that have obscured the message of what we should be doing at this great moment in time. I will quote a couple of those comments.

The Minister of International Cooperation said, “family planning measures are going to never be part of that group”, i.e. what will be discussed at the G20 summit.

On March 16, the Minister of Foreign Affairs said, “It does not deal, in any way, shape or form, with family planning to be the purpose of this”, i.e. the plan of action in the G20 and G8 meetings is to save lives.

What we are dealing with here is not a political issue. It is a medical issue and a humanitarian issue. I want to describe some of the challenges and problems that are faced with maternal and international health and put forward a plan of action to deal with this problem. I sincerely hope, as I am sure do all colleagues across the House and all of the opposition parties, the government takes this opportunity to implement what works from a scientific basis. We have heard from many of my colleagues today, from my party and others, how to do this.

The challenge is that right now, every minute of every day, a woman dies as a consequence of or during pregnancy. That is 530,000 women every year. They essentially die from five largely preventable causes. Women bleed, hemorrhage and babies get stuck in obstructed labour They get infections, sepsis and something called eclampsia where the blood pressure goes high, they get seizures and they die. Also, 63,000 women a year die as a result of septic abortions, abortions they get because they have no other option.

What does that mean? It means that when the mother dies more than half of her children who are under the age of five also die. Many members of the House do not understand that. The death of the mother presages a death of most of her children under the age of five, which leaves not only a sea of orphans but also a sea of children who die, which is completely unnecessarily. This is devastating to the economy and the social cohesiveness of these countries. Most of these deaths are occurring in developing countries.

How do we deal with this? It is true, and the government is correct to say, that health systems are the key. It really is focusing on the basics: having a trained health care worker, access to the proper medications and diagnostics, clean water and proper nutrition, and access to a full array of family planning options, including access to abortions in those countries where it is legal.

The World Health Organization talks about this in a very important way. It says that family planning allows individuals to have the desired number and spacing of children by the use of contraceptive measures and treat involuntary fertility.

In other words, family planning is voluntary and contraception is tailored to the individual needs. We cannot try to foist our morals on other people, and no one is suggesting that for a moment, but we need to support that which is known to work and that which is legal in the countries that we are trying to assist congruent with what they want.

Why are we so focused on family planning? It we can provide people with family planning, it will save more than one-third of the 530,000 women who die every year while they are pregnant. Can anyone Imagine that one-third of those women's lives would be saved, including the lives of 50% of the children who die during early childhood? If the government wants to truly save lives, then needs to follow the science and enable people to access a full array of family planning options.

While the government has spoken about not opening the door on the abortion issue, we say, amen. However, if it does not want to open the door to the abortion issue then the logical conclusion is that we must give people the rights that currently exist, and one of those rights in our country is a woman's right to a safe abortion. Why is the government preventing women in other countries from having the same rights as women in our country?

If Canadian men and women did not have access to a full array of family planning options, we would have a much higher rate of maternal mortality and infant mortality.

In our country things are not all homogenous. There are segments and elements in our country, particularly in first nations communities and in rural communities, where maternal mortality and infant mortality rates are too high. Most Canadians would be shocked to know that our country, which spends the fifth highest amount on a per capita basis than any other country in the world, has the 22nd highest rate of infant mortality in the world. What kind of a situation is that? That is a national shame. The government should work with our provincial counterparts to deal with this.

When it comes to family planning, which this is important from a medical perspective, if women have the ability to control their own fertility, in other words, allowing them to space their children out and not having them when they are too young or too old, then they would be able to have their children at the correct age and with the correct spacing between them. This is a long established right, one that is recognized by the United Nations.

On the abortion issue, in 1994 in Cairo, members of the United Nations, including our own, agreed that women should have the right to safe abortions in those countries where it is legal.

More than 80,000 women die as a consequence of iron deficiency anemia every year. Dr. Zlotkin from the U of T and many others in Canada have championed the micronutrient initiative, which we call pennies from heaven. We call it pennies from heaven because a small investment goes a long way toward saving not only a mother's life but also the lives of children.

As I said before, if we get the health system right, if we can treat the pregnant woman, which is millennium development goal five, then we can also treat 80% of those who go through a hospital emergency department. I am speaking of the big killers like gastroenteritis, pneumonia, tuberculosis, malaria, malnutrition and HIV-AIDS.

The government speaks about wanting to be effective in terms of using taxpayer money, which we are all behind that, but if it wants to be most effective and make the most effective, sensible, cost effective use of taxpayer money, then the answer is family planning. Access to family planning is the most cost-effective way to improve the health of populations, as well as improve the economy and the environment.This is absolutely crucial. It is hard to understand why the government would not allow this to happen.

I also want to talk about the government's position on a few other areas related to this.

In Vancouver, Drs. Montaner, Thomas Kerr, Evan Wood and others have come up with a seek and treat program for those with HIV-AIDS. In my province of British Columbia, 12,000 people are HIV positive, the highest in Canada on a per capita basis. At the Centre for Excellence, Dr. Montaner and his team have put forward a program called Seek and Treat. They are also the champions of HAART therapy, the highly active, antiretroviral therapy treatment. They will use this to seek and treat undiagnosed people who are HIV positive. This is profound because the HAART therapy allows people who are HIV positive to receive triple therapy. If they receive this treatment, the viral particles can be dropped so low that they are actually prevented from infecting others. This is the most positive new evidence we have to curb this pandemic.

What is the government doing for harm reduction strategies like this? It has actually taken the Insite program in British Columbia that Dr. Montaner and his team championed and, remarkably, is taking it to court to prevent patients from having access to this program that is saving lives.

What kind of a government is actually depriving people from being able to access known, proven lifesaving initiatives? For all of those who are watching, that is what the government is doing today. It is actually standing in the way of lifesaving measures, including the Insite program in Vancouver, and is using the courts to do so.

The lower courts said that evidence from The Lancet to the The New England Journal of Medicine showed that this particular initiative saves lives and that governments must allow patients to access the program. What does the Conservative government do? No, it said, it could not allow this because it violated the government's sense of ideology. The government stands in the way and is actually going to the courts to block a lifesaving measure.

The reason the Liberal Party has put this motion forward is that the government has started to change its tale a little bit, stating it is not going to close the door on any family planning options but is also not going to open the book on abortion.

What does that mean? It could mean a lot of things. It is very different from saying it is going to enable people to access family planning, that it is going to bring it to the G8 and G20 tables and work with the most powerful leaders in the world to include this as part of an integrated plan to save women, men, and children's lives.

If the government does not do this, then not only does it mean the death of millions of women and children that could have been prevented, but it will also prevent many men and women from living through the HIV-AIDS issue. What the government in effect has been saying up until very recently is that it is not going to promote simple, well-known options for people to protect themselves from the spread of HIV.

What kind of government can possibly get it into its mind that it is going to deprive people from having the tools they need to protect themselves from HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases? It is absolutely inconceivable.

Unless the government wants to tell us something else, the thing that is driving this is ideology. The reason we put the reference to President Bush in the motion is that President Bush put an obligation on U.S. aid and the PEPFAR program that they were not going to fund anybody, group or country who was in any way, shape or form going to enable women to have access to safe abortions.

I want to discuss this, just for a second, if I may. Far from the comfort of this particular room, something else is going on. As a physician who has worked in Africa right next to a war zone, I have seen some pretty horrible things. One of the shames of the world is the use of rape as a tool in conflict. In places like the eastern part of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, 70% of the women in some communities have been raped and gang raped. What option does that woman have if she has been gang raped and is pregnant?

Can the government members truly look into their own hearts, in their Christian hearts if they are Christian, and ask themselves if they could look that woman in the eyes and say, “We are going to prevent you from having an abortion even though you want one, even though if you take this fetus to term you will be a pariah and cannot handle it, which will be psychologically devastating to you”, for whatever reasons she may have.

If members of the government look in their hearts, do they truly think they can also look at that woman today and say, “No, you will not have access to a abortion.” I would ask them to reflect on that, because that is the reality in too many countries in the world. It is the dark side of too many countries in the conflict zones in our world today. We would like to believe that it does not happen, but it is the reality in too many counties in the world. That is why the world has agreed to what is known as an integrated series of options and initiatives to enable us to save the lives of children, men, and women, as the government says it wants to do.

It is this series or bucket of solutions, which I have articulated here, that is science and fact based. The Prime Minister actually supported this last year. What the Prime Minister signed onto at last year's G8 summit in Rome is the following. The summit members, including the Prime Minister, committed to “accelerate progress on maternal health, including through sexual and reproductive health care and services and voluntary family planning”.

The people at the Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, including Maureen McTeer, Dr. Lalonde, and Dr. Dorothy Shaw, who is one of the key people and our spokesperson on the G8 and G20 and part of the Partnership for Maternal, Newborn and Child Health, and others, have articulated very clearly, dispassionately, factually and scientifically a series of initiatives that Canada could and should embrace based on the science.

I understand the sensitivities of members on the other side about the abortion issue. They may be personally opposed to it. That is their right, but they do not have the right to deprive other people of what will save their lives. That is the crux of the matter and that is why we have tabled this motion today.

It is also a moment in time when Canada is going to lead. We are going to lead at the G8 and G20 summits. If the government simply puts out these very vague terms saying that it is not going to close the door on anything in particular and it is not going to open the book on abortion, it should come clean about what it is going to do.

This is how it can happen. Right now the sherpas are meeting and this month the foreign ministers will be meeting in Gatineau. The month thereafter the development ministers will be meeting. What they need to do is to come up with an integrated plan. The inputs are known and the tasks be divided up so that each G8 member country takes a leadership role in each of these particular areas. One country could do health human resources and others could do water, power, micronutrients and family planning. Each country therefore could take a leadership role.

The sherpas should be part of an ongoing working group to implement that plan. There would be one plan of action based on the science, one implementing mechanism and one oversight and reporting mechanism to taxpayers in the countries. Of course, all of this should be transparent. As the Prime Minister has said, he wants transparency and accountability. We are all in favour of that, and it is what they need to do. They need to post and record what they are doing. They could even partner with different groups in our country.

There is an initiative now with some of our universities, called the Centres for International Health and Development. Essentially, the government has the opportunity to link up our universities with institutions in developing countries, using our universities as a way to capacity-build based on what the recipient countries want. That is a functional way the government can implement a lot of these measures, partnering with NGOs, universities, and international partners like UNFPA, and domestic partners like ACPD and others to implement what we know needs to be done to save lives.

It would be unacceptable for the Liberal Party to let the government off the hook. We are not going to buy into vague statements by the government that are meant to obscure this issue. However, we will work with the government to implement what is necessary to save mothers' lives, men's lives and children's lives.

I want to appeal to the sense of humanity of the members of government. If they could look beyond their own personal ideologies for a moment and put themselves in the shoes of somebody who lives in a country far way, or even in some communities in our country, and consider the difficult choices that people sometimes have to make to protect themselves and save the lives of their children and families, I would ask them to consider what they would need to save their own lives and those of their families. The only conclusion they can arrive at is to allow others to have access to the same options that all of us have, whether we choose to embrace them or not, and allow everybody to have the full range of primary health care services, including access to a full range of family planning options and the ability to have a safe abortion where legal.

I would ask the members to look into their hearts and allow this, because failure on this will result in millions of lost lives. Do they want to save lives or not? That is what I will leave them with.

[Rod Bruinooge, Conservative, Winnipeg South, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to acknowledge the member opposite's delivery and his obvious understanding of so many of the elements he spoke of. Clearly, as a medical doctor, he has a lot of insight into this important debate. I would like to offer a few questions for him.

As he heard recently, even today, this policy is not going to include abortion. However, he recommended that it should include abortion. Earlier during oral questions, his leader also indicated that this foreign policy should be based on the status quo that we have in Canada.

Are there any exclusions from the status quo in Canada that should be made to our foreign policy, perhaps in regard to gender selection abortions? If there is a law in Canada against that already, then of course the practice would be excluded.

Are there any other things that he can think of that should excluded from Canada's foreign policy?

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

Mr. Speaker, I will keep it very simple. Why do we not just embrace what is already agreed to by the professionals, the Partnership for Maternal, Newborn and Child Health, and the Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists? In other words, Canada should support access to safe abortions in those countries where it is legal.

That is the beginning and the end of it, because that is what will save the lives of women and children.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives are conveniently hiding behind the premise that this resolution is anti-American. Here is a newsflash for the government: President Obama revoked the global gag rule, a policy under the previous American government that barred any foreign organization receiving U.S. funds from providing, advocating, informing and counselling women on abortion. He did that in his first week in office.

I am assuming that the government is okay with that position now. I do not think that President Obama would be offended or opposed to this motion presented by the Liberals. Why does the member think the government is continuing to hide behind that very thin veil and saying that it cannot vote for the resolution because it is anti-American?

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

Mr. Speaker, I think what the government is trying to do is to obscure the facts of the matter. The member is quite right. We included the reference to President Bush because the president put his proviso on his PEPFAR moneys for HIV/AIDS so that there would be no funding for groups involved in providing access to abortions.

This is relevant to the Canadian government because the Canadian government is doing this right now. The government is depriving and withholding essential moneys from the International Planned Parenthood Federation, because that federation supports women's rights to have access to safe abortions in those countries where it is legal. I do not think our viewers would be fascinated to know that our government is using them to deprive individuals from having access to this, by not funding a group that we have funded for many years. That is an ideological position, because the government has not said anything about why it has not provided planned parenthood with the moneys it needs to improve maternal health.

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

Mr. Speaker, there are a lot of controversies going on here. As a physician, I can say that the word contraception means stopping people from getting pregnant. Abortion is not a method of contraception. If ideologues believe that by funding family planning and contraception, they are supporting abortion, they are wrong.

One of the millennium goals with regard to this is to decrease the number of unsafe abortions by 50% by 2015. If we know that good contraception stops people from getting to the point where they need an abortion, is this not logical?

To get back to the question, when something illogical goes on in a public policy forum, we have to ask if it is ideological or not. Is good contraception not a way of bringing down the number of abortions?

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague made a very good point, that if the government and all of us are interested in reducing the incidence of abortion, people need to have access to a full range of family planning options. If we allow that to happen, it will actually reduce the number of deaths from abortions, and indeed the number of abortions that are taking place, because it will prevent unwanted pregnancies.

I remind the government that if it is interested in saving lives, it is actually dismissing the fact that 63,000 women a year are dying from septic abortions. Furthermore, we cannot address the HIV-AIDS pandemic without enabling people to have access to condoms. Why on earth is the government so afraid? Why is it taking such a bizarre, anti-scientific position that puts it completely at odds with most of the rest of the world, and certainly the rest of the G8 countries?

[Rod Bruinooge, Conservative, Winnipeg South, MB]

Mr. Speaker, in his last answer to a question I posed, the member suggested that we should leave it to the professionals. I am assuming he means the Canadian Medical Association.

Does he and the Liberal Party agree with the Canadian Medical Association's viewpoint on gestational limits, and is that included in his foreign policy proposal?

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

Mr. Speaker, as I said before, I am trying to keep it simple and do that which is agreed upon by the medical groups.

There are medical groups the member should take a look at. He would be well advised to look at FIGO, the Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada, and the Partnership for Maternal, Newborn and Child Health. All of them have been doing a lot of work for many years to advance those series of solutions.

I was in Rome last year. I chaired the last two pre-G8 meetings of parliamentarians for international health, in Rome last year and in Tokyo the year before that. Last year we hammered out a very constructive series of solutions. The member can visit my website where he will find the G8 declaration and a series of solutions the government could adopt. That plan would be very effective.

I ask the member simply to look at those groups and he will get the position that will be medically based. Then he and his government will be on sound scientific footing when they go to the G8 and G20 summits later this year.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a follow-up question.

In 2009 in the United Kingdom, there was a white paper on international development calling for safe abortion services where abortion is legal and a rise by one-third of 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.

Why does the government want to be out of step with the majority of the industrialized countries in the world?

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

Mr. Speaker, this is what is inconceivable. In particular, the Prime Minister talks about honouring past commitments. What he ought to do is honour the commitment he signed onto last year in L'Aquila, Italy. That commitment talks about enabling women and men to have access to a full range of family planning options. It also talks about, importantly and the government has said this correctly, access to skilled birth attendants.

I look at the work that Dr. Paul Farmer has done with Partners in Health as a good model the government could adopt and work with the other countries in dealing with this.

It would be terrible if this issue simply got bogged down on the abortion issue. Access to safe abortions is part of the solution, but it is also about access to skilled birth attendants, meds, diagnostics, cold storage, micronutrients and clean water.

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Lévis—Bellechasse, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part this afternoon in this debate. I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for North Vancouver.

My comments will focus on what the government is doing to provide more effective, better targeted and more transparent help to children and young people.

Nearly two months ago, our Prime Minister indicated that he wanted to play a leadership role at the G8 summit to be held in Canada and to make aid given to women and children in the poorest countries a priority.

Our government understands that success in development is much easier to achieve when children and young people get a good start in life. That is why the future of children and young people is a fundamental priority for the Canadian International Development Agency, whose mission is to coordinate Canada's international aid to improve the living conditions of the least fortunate. Développement international Desjardins, whose head office is in Lévis, also contributes to Canada's humanitarian work throughout the world.

There have never been as many young people as there are today. Nearly half the world's 6.8 billion inhabitants are under 25. Of that number, nearly 90% live in developing countries. When young people receive the care and education they need, they can thrive and contribute positively to their society. But many young people face obstacles.

Lack of access to services and the substandard services they receive are factors that threaten their well-being and their survival. Too often they are victims of violence, exploitation and neglect, especially in countries that are economically fragile or in conflict situations.

This is particularly true for girls and young women, whose basic rights are far from being respected. They are less educated, in poorer health and less likely to contribute to society.

Regardless of where they live, children and young people have the right to live in a safe environment, free from violence and discrimination, which is not always the case.

Our government understands this fundamental principle and, through CIDA, is implementing a children and youth strategy, which will help more young people positively contribute to society. When it comes to children and young people, it is clear that something needs to be done.

Lack of education and skills, under-investment in programs for girls, violence and abuse, high rates of infant and maternal mortality, not to mention exponential population growth, are all factors that put the current generation of children and young people in serious danger.

CIDA's strategy has three priorities: child survival, including maternal health; access to quality education; and safety and security of children and youth.

We must increase our efforts to improve child survival, since nearly 9 million children die every year before their fifth birthday as a result of preventable and treatable diseases.

First, we must take care of the mothers. In developing countries, a woman dies in pregnancy or childbirth every minute. We must consider maternal health just as important as child survival.

Our government made its commitment clear when our Prime Minister announced in January that maternal and child health would be one of the top priorities at the G8 summit that will be held in Canada this year.

Canada plans on working with its G8 partners to develop a comprehensive approach, in order to improve the health of mothers and children under the age of five and to make concrete advancements in achieving the health-related millennium development goals.

CIDA’s second priority is education. An educated workforce is essential for sustainable development and poverty reduction.

Access to education has improved in developing countries, but for various financial, social, health and security reasons, 72 million children—including 39 million girls—still do not go to school.

Educating children is a priority, just like the ability to finish the basic 10-year program. Our government is also working on strengthening various national educational systems through teacher training, the development of appropriate curricula, and better learning materials.

The efforts that Canada has made to provide a better education to a larger number of children and young people in developing countries are aimed at establishing educational systems that are better structured and enable young people, especially girls, to acquire the basic skills they need to become productive citizens.

Finally, the third part of this strategy is the future: a secure future for children and young people.

In many developing countries, violence, abuse and exploitation—not to mention child trafficking and the worst forms of child labour—are often widespread. Girls are especially vulnerable, as are poor, marginalized children and young people.

If we turn a blind eye to security and protection issues, our investments in health, education and other areas will not have any lasting effects on the lives of women and children. Children, as the most vulnerable group in society, are entitled to a safe environment in which to grow and develop.

Canada will therefore strive, along with the countries involved, to develop the legal frameworks needed to ensure that more and more children and young people, especially girls, are protected against violence, exploitation and abuse.

These priorities are not determined in a haphazard way. Quite to the contrary, we consulted with numerous stakeholders, including non-governmental organizations, other governments, donor countries and international corporations, to design a strategy that would help both to reduce poverty and give more children and young people a chance to live productive lives, enjoy good health and be protected against violence and discrimination—problems that too many of them still have to face.

In conclusion, I would just like to say that the approach taken to international assistance under the Liberals lacked coherence. In spreading money all over without setting priorities, they failed to accomplish anything. Our government has taken the steps needed to concentrate our bilateral aid in 20 key countries in which we can make a difference.

We saw this in January with the Prime Minister's intention to focus the G8 meetings on the issue of women’s and children’s health. We also saw it in a much more tangible way in Haiti, when the humanitarian catastrophe arose. In this case, there was much more than mere words and speeches. There was humanitarian assistance and the concerted action of our military personnel and leaders to come to the aid of the people of Haiti, and more especially Haitian women and children.

We are in favour, therefore, of targeted international assistance to provide practical solutions.

I will gladly take questions from the members of the House.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my hon. colleague whether or not he thinks that women in developing countries should have the same rights as women in Canada, all things being equal, for example, access to family planning and abortion. Does he not think that women in those countries should have the same rights as women in Canada who have those rights? Does he think that Canada should take a leadership role in working with other G8 countries to ensure there is access to family planning and safe abortions in those countries where it is legal if we are going to address the issue of maternal and childhood mortality?

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Lévis—Bellechasse, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his question.

I am pleased to see that I actually agree with my colleague across the floor on something. Canada has a leadership role to play this year among the G8 nations, and infant mortality will be one of this year's top priorities.

Yes, we will cooperate with other countries and remain open to any possibility that will produce concrete results, just as we have done since we first came to power.

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

Mr. Speaker, according to the World Health Organization, the first step to avoid maternal deaths is to ensure that women have access to family planning and safe abortions. Family planning could prevent 25% of maternal and child deaths in the developing world by preventing risky births that are too close together, or too early or too late in a woman's life.

Modern contraception helps fight the spread of HIV-AIDS by allowing HIV positive women to space births for optimal health and to access services to prevent mother to child transmission.

There are a lot of reasons why the developed countries are moving in one direction. Why does the Conservative government have such reluctance and resistance in terms of the progress we see from other countries? Why is it so reluctant to support this resolution? It does not seem there are a lot of objectionable parts to it other than what some members across the way feel are anti-American.

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Lévis—Bellechasse, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his question.

As many of my colleagues have said today, we are open to many different possibilities, including contraception. However, it is important not to focus on just one measure. Instead, we should look at a set of measures and at overall conditions.

We know how important safe drinking water is and the positive effects it can have. We must adopt a more comprehensive approach, which we can do. We are willing to work in cooperation with the opposition parties, but there is no need to insult our American neighbours or their administration. On the contrary, everything can be done respectfully. In fact, that is a basic rule of foreign affairs.

We are open to exploring possibilities. We have been clear on that. Addressing the health problems of women and children in the poorest areas of the world will be one of our top priorities at the G8 summit. We will work with the other G8 countries to come up with concrete solutions.

[Maurice Vellacott, Conservative, Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, SK]

Mr. Speaker, when the Liberals were at the helm, the methodology behind the international assistance seemed to be very much a scattergun, or shotgun, approach, throwing money at everything that essentially guaranteed nothing was accomplished.

This government has moved to be much more focused. We have larger amounts in our bilateral assistance, where we can really make a difference. Here again, with respect of the maternal health care initiative, that is the point.

Could the member respond with respect the general focus of our efforts in international assistance, which is different than the scattergun approach of the Liberal Party?

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Lévis—Bellechasse, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his question. Of course, as the saying goes, “You should not chew more than you can bite off ”.

[Some hon. members]

“Bite off more than you can chew.”

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Lévis—Bellechasse, QC]

I thank my colleagues for the correction. So, as the old saying goes, “You should not bite off more than you can chew.” We have focused on 20 countries where we can help make a difference.

Some 9 million children die every year before their fifth birthday because of a lack of quality health care and drinking water and because of poor nutrition. Those are the problems we hope to address through the policy put in place in agreements with the other G8 countries.