Don Davies

[Business of Supply, March 23rd, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, what is interesting is the government's refusal to acknowledge that contraception and family planning played a role in maternal health drove a rift in the House. It took that position for days on end. Finally it changed its position and did an about-face because of the public pressure from Canadians across the country. That is creating a rift.

I am glad we have come together on that and recognized that contraception and family planning are vital to saving women's and children's lives around the world. However, I want to just focus on the issue of attacking the United States.

When I read this motion, it says:

—that the Canadian government should refrain from advancing the failed right-wing ideologies previously imposed by the George W. Bush administration in the United States...

That says nothing about attacking the United States. It is about attacking an ideology that hurts women. What specifically in that paragraph, if the member could help me understand, does he find objectionable or incorrect?

[Business of Supply, March 23rd, 2010]

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.

[Business of Supply, March 23rd, 2010]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his very thoughtful, well-reasoned and consistent message. I emphasize the word “consistent” because, as we have found when we talked about commitments to women or to alleviating the effects of poverty or the health impact on people that is caused by poverty in this country, words are cheap and hollow. What we really need in this country is a government that will back up those words with the resources necessary.

I want to focus on the economic underpinnings of the health problems facing women, because I believe there is a clear connection between poverty and lack of opportunities and the health outcomes of women and children in our country.

I am wondering if my hon. colleague might comment on that for us and tell us what he thinks needs to be done in this country and around the world, economically, to help improve the health outcomes of women and children.

[Business of Supply, March 23rd, 2010]

Madam Speaker, I would like to congratulate my hon. colleague from London—Fanshawe and thank her on behalf of all Canadians, particularly women, for the wonderful work that she does on behalf of the women of this country and, in fact, around the world.

We in the NDP of course welcome this interest, however new-found it may be, in the health of mothers and children in the developing world by the current government. We would also like to bring the focus back to the situation of women and children in this country.

Being one of the wealthiest nations of the world, it is shocking that 70% of Inuit children, pre-school age, live in homes where there is not always enough food. There are many mothers and children who live in this country who live in unsafe places, who go without food, who do not have electricity or heat because of persistent deep poverty.

Now that the government has committed to catching up with other wealthy nations on maternal health aid in foreign countries, I wonder whether my hon. colleague would comment on what she feels is needed in this country to help put women and children first in Canada, as well.

[Business of Supply, March 23rd, 2010]

Madam Speaker, when we talk about foreign aid and development, words are cheap, but what really matters is whether governments put their resources, financial and otherwise, behind it.

When the former Liberal government was in power, it promised its famous target of contributing 0.7% of GNP to international aid, but never met that. Canada, today, contributes less than half the 0.7% of the gross national income that we and other rich nations pledged to developing countries 40 years ago.

The 2010 budget, announced just a while back, contains a freeze on foreign aid levels. Officials have said that the maternal health program will have to come out of existing budget funds.

Would my hon. colleague comment on whether she thinks Canada is actually fulfilling its pledge and its promise internationally by promising these programs but never developing or delivering the money and resources needed to carry out its lofty goals?

[Business of Supply, March 23rd, 2010]

Madam Speaker, according to the World Health Organization, “The first step for avoiding maternal deaths is to ensure that women have access to family planning” and reproductive health choices.

Family planning, it states, 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, and 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.

As my colleague just stated, my figures are that an estimated 74,000 women around the world die as a result of unsafe abortions that could be prevented with contraception and access to safe abortion facilities.

I will stay away from abortion, for the moment, and just talk about contraception.

I am glad the government is talking about contraception now but I would like to know from the minister why the current government was reluctant to include the word “contraception,” or that concept, when it first announced its program. What was the problem with discussing contraception or making that a part of Canada's foreign policy?

[Business of Supply, March 23rd, 2010]

Madam Speaker, last Thursday I had the opportunity to go to a breakfast in Vancouver sponsored by the West Coast LEAF, a wonderful organization in Vancouver that focuses on women and the issues facing them.

They spoke about the continued inequality facing women, not only in Canada but also around the world. They spoke of the fact that every policy of government needs to be placed through a gender lens, because policies often have a different impact on women than men.

They spoke directly about contraception, family planning and reproductive health choices, and the direct connection between these issues and the health of women and girls. In listening to these women, we were struck by the introduction of ideology in government decisions into these matters of basic health and basic equality.

I am wondering if my hon. colleague could speak about what he has noticed in his career and about this government regarding the introduction of ideology into questions of fundamentally sound policy choices and health issues.

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, March 18th, 2010]

Madam Speaker, I heard references to manufacturing, jobs, young people and, in particular, to hope and optimism.

The young people who live in British Columbia are very concerned about the environment and what kind of world they will inherit and live in for their generation and for the generations to come.

The throne speech stands as a stark repudiation of a green economy and, I think, the hope that they express. It transfers environmental assessments from the Environmental Assessment Agency to the National Energy Board. It contains no real substantial targets for greenhouse gas reduction. It fails to create a national industrial strategy that will position us to a clean energy economy, one that puts a lot of money and resources into an economy that is sustainable in the long run.

Would my hon. colleague comment on the throne speech and its deficiencies in respect of the environment?

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, March 18th, 2010]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The question I just asked the member dealt with the Speech from the Throne, which is the matter under debate. The Speech from the Throne dealt with taxation policy.

My hon. colleague stood up and impugned my reputation in the House by stating that my question had nothing to do with the topic under discussion and then he proceeded to talk about the gun registry, which has nothing to do with the Speech from the Throne. I would ask--

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, March 18th, 2010]

Madam Speaker, I congratulate my learned colleague on his speech.

I want to focus on the budget's transfer of corporate taxation on the backs of the citizens of this country. The government will be implementing the HST in British Columbia and Ontario which will add billions of dollars to the tax obligations of our citizens. We also see the reduction of corporate taxes in the country staying essentially flat over the next five years, while personal income tax will go from approximately $100 billion to $150 billion over the next five years.

I am wondering what the member's comments would be on the wisdom of a tax policy that puts more taxes on the backs of ordinary working Canadians and takes it off of corporations leaving Canada with the lowest corporate income taxes of any of the G8 or G20 countries, far lower than it needs to be to be competitive in the real world.