Jim Maloway

[Petitions, March 24th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to present two petitions today.

The first petition is signed by thousands of Canadians who are calling on Parliament to adopt Canada's first air passengers' bill of rights. Bill C-310 will compensate air passengers with all Canadian carriers, including charters anywhere they fly.

The bill provides compensation for overbooked flights, cancelled flights and long tarmac delays. It also addresses issues such as late and misplaced bags. It requires all-inclusive pricing by airlines in all their advertising.

The legislation has been in effect for five years in Europe. Why should Air Canada passengers receive better treatment in Europe than in Canada. Airlines will have to inform passengers of flight changes, either delays or cancellations. The new rules must be posted in the airport. Airlines must inform passengers of their rights and the process to file for compensation. If the airlines follow the rules, it will cost them nothing.

The petitioners call on the government to support Bill C-310 which would introduce Canada's first air passengers' bill of rights.

[Business of Supply, March 23rd, 2010]

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

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

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

[Business of Supply, March 23rd, 2010]

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

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

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

I would like the member to comment on that issue.

[Business of Supply, March 23rd, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, unlike the government member, I actually enjoyed the speech from the member.

However, I do want to point out to her that great speeches from the progressive wing of the Liberal Party are not the total goal here. We remember that the Liberals were in power for 40 years, or certainly for 40 years they have taken the position that 0.7% of gross national product should be put aside for international development and yet to this date we still have not achieved half of that.

This morning the member for Vancouver Kingsway and I asked successive Liberal speakers to put on the record now whether, if they were to form the government in the future, they would in fact agree to go back to 0.7% of gross national product toward international development. We would like the member to put that commitment on the record now.

[Business of Supply, March 23rd, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, every year it is estimated that 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. In addition, for every woman who dies, 20 more experience serious complications, ranging from chronic infection to disabling injuries.

The 2010 budget announced a freeze on foreign aid levels and officials have said that this maternal health program will have to be funded out of the existing aid budget.

How does this lack of resources square with the Prime Minister's new-found interest in fulfilling the millennium development goals?

[Business of Supply, March 23rd, 2010]

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.

[Business of Supply, March 23rd, 2010]

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?

[Business of Supply, March 23rd, 2010]

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?

[Business of Supply, March 23rd, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for a very progressive speech. We hear that a lot from Liberals in opposition. They talk a great line in opposition.

I remember when they were in opposition they talked about the red book promises. They said that they would get rid of the GST, cancel the helicopter contract and bring in a national day care program. For 40 years, those same Liberals have been talking about contributing 0.7% of gross national income to international aid. As of this day, we still have not achieved half of that.

I have a question for which I am trying to get an answer, just as my colleague, the member for Vancouver Kingsway who asked the previous speaker, the member for Etobicoke North, tried. Will the member commit, if and when she does become part of the governing party, that that particular government will live up to that 40-year-old promise?

[Business of Supply, March 23rd, 2010]

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.