House of Commons photoWon her last election, in 2008, with 40% of the vote.
Business of Supply March 23rd, 2010
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.
Business of Supply March 23rd, 2010
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.
International Organization of la Francophonie March 22nd, 2010
Mr. Speaker, on March 20, Canada, as one of the founding members, celebrated the 40th anniversary of the International Organization of la Francophonie, along with rest of the world's 70 francophone countries.
The few activities organized in Canada did little to help us forget the Conservative government's neglect of the importance of the French language and francophone culture during international events where Canada is represented.
The Vancouver Olympic Games are a recent example of this neglect. Unfortunately, French did not occupy the place it deserved during the celebrations. The Conservative government has been justly and frequently criticized for that neglect.
Despite this neglect, the Francophonie has a solid position in the world. Congratulations to all those countries that continue to promote both the French language and francophone culture.
International Cooperation March 8th, 2010
Mr. Speaker, with one hand they giveth and with the other hand they taketh away.
By cutting $4 billion over five years from CIDA's budgets, the most vulnerable people, including African women and children, will have to pay for this government's financial incompetence.
Furthermore, how can this government transform the mission in Afghanistan to a humanitarian mission and protect women after 2011, as it has promised, when it is drastically slashing Canada's international assistance budgets?
International Cooperation March 8th, 2010
Mr. Speaker, on this International Women's Day, we must point out that this government has a double standard. While the Prime Minister was recalibrating his public relations at the expense of African women and children in the context of the G8 summit, he was simultaneously planning to slash funding for Canadian international assistance.
How can he claim to care about the health of African women when he is cutting $4 billion from CIDA's budget?
Madam Speaker, not surprisingly, the parliamentary secretary did not answer my questions. I have often asked questions about this issue, but have never received anything better than vague responses that sidestepped the real question.
In fact, the minister has been providing vague responses in an attempt to hide the government's new vision for international aid, a vision more economic than humanitarian.
Under Liberal governments, Africa was a priority for Canada. We made and kept commitments to provide humanitarian aid to African countries, including members of la Francophonie. The Conservative government made its decision 10 months ago, but we still do not know the selection criteria for priority recipients of Canadian international aid.
Madam Speaker, following on the question I asked the Minister of International Cooperation in the House on October 1, I would like to take a bit more time today to discuss Canada's development assistance for African countries, especially members of la Francophonie.
In February 2009, the Conservative government decided to reorganize its international aid according to effectiveness criteria, focusing 80% of the aid provided by CIDA on 20 countries around the world. The big losers were francophone African countries. Five of these countries were dropped off the priority assistance list: Benin, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Niger and Rwanda.
As the critic for la Francophonie, I held meetings with representatives of these countries in Ottawa to look at the effectiveness criteria the Conservative government used in selecting the 20 countries that remain on the government's list and will receive 80% of the Canadian aid.
CIDA's criteria are still unclear. To listen to the Minister of International Cooperation, who stated on October 1 that the Government of Canada is helping all those in need, it would appear that the fight against poverty is the main criterion on which the choice of countries was based.
According to the 2008 Human Development Report, we see that the five francophone countries dropped from CIDA's priority list are at the bottom of the list when it comes to human development.
Two of them, Burkina Faso and Niger, are in the bottom 10, out of a total of 179 countries. Burkina Faso still has a 40% illiteracy rate. Niger is one of the countries most affected by drought, with 2.4 million Nigeriens affected by famine in 2005. Today, without international aid, that country could not meet the needs of its population.
We decided we needed to look elsewhere. The November 2009 Fraser Forum explains that the countries that have significant economic freedom are those that best achieve their economic and democratic objectives. The researchers devoted an entire article to African member countries of La Francophonie, pointing out that those countries have to increase their economic freedom and not wait for aid from other countries.
That may be the key criterion the government is using to establish CIDA's priority list. By focusing on getting the most out of its aid, the agency has eliminated from its priority list countries with a low index of economic freedom and chosen others that, although in need of aid, are in a better position.
But we were wrong again. Among the countries that were added to the list of those that will receive 80% of CIDA's assistance is Colombia, a country with a very low index of economic freedom, much lower than that of Rwanda, which has been removed from the priority list.
Furthermore, Colombia has made almost no progress in terms of increasing its economic freedom rating. According to the 2009 index of economic freedom, Colombia's index improved by only 0.26% between 1970 and 2007. Rwanda, on the other hand, has improved its index of economic freedom by 1.04% since 1970. For Burundi, which was also removed from CIDA's list, the index of economic freedom has increased by 1.08%. That country is in a better position than Colombia, according to the index.
After—
Fairness for the Self-Employed Act December 2nd, 2009
Mr. Speaker, my colleague posed an extremely important and difficult question. Outside the committee, we had a very hard time getting real figures in response to the questions we asked. The answers were not very clear. It took us a long time to come to the conclusion I just spoke about in the House.
The whole bill does not necessarily have to be reviewed, because it is a fundamentally good bill that will give benefits to people who definitely need them and are asking for them. What needs to be reviewed are the figures regarding the benefits that will be paid to Quebeckers, to Canadians who live in Quebec. The government or someone else could still review the figures and come back to us with more concrete, real and correct figures.
Fairness for the Self-Employed Act December 2nd, 2009
Mr. Speaker, since I do not have much time, I would like to get straight to the point regarding Bill C-56 to amend the Employment Insurance Act, to establish a scheme to provide for the payment of special benefits to self-employed persons who are not currently entitled to receive them. This includes maternity, sickness, and compassionate care benefits, and parental or adoptive benefits.
It is clear to us on this side of the House that this bill is extremely important for a large part of the population, especially for women who work. For example, we know that many women have to work several jobs, even if they are self employed, and we know they face serious problems, such as a lack of income support during periods of unemployment or an economic downturn. We know that self-employed female workers are often forced to quit their jobs when they are sick, and therefore have no income.
We also know—and I am skipping many parts of my speech—that it is women who traditionally care for children, although many men now help, and it is also women who care for their aging parents. This bill, which aims to help self-employed workers by providing sickness benefits and compassionate care benefits, should therefore provide some welcome relief. However, I would like to remind the House that last week, at the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities, we came up against a very important fiscal problem. We learned that this creates a very serious problem for Quebec. I will explain.
Self-employed workers in Quebec already have access to Government of Quebec benefits for parental leave, sick leave and compassionate leave to care for family. This means that, naturally, in the government's calculations for this bill, self-employed workers in Quebec should not have to pay the same premiums as other Canadians, because they already receive part of those benefits, not from the Government of Canada, but from the Government of Quebec. So it seems clear to us that the calculation that was reported to us in committee was incorrect.
Since I do not have much time left, I will simply ask the government to review the situation based on the actuarial forecasts, to look at the contribution rates for Quebeckers under Bill C-56, particularly for sickness benefits, and to have a serious look at the figures. The Liberals will vote in favour of Bill C-56, but I want to be clear: we are urging the government to check its figures and to fix them if necessary.
Status of Women November 27th, 2009
Mr. Speaker, as chair of the Canadian Association of Parliamentarians on Population and Development, I have been proud to defend and represent Canada's policies abroad on women's equality rights, such as our commitment to the Cairo 94 program of action and the 2000 millennium development goals.
Canada has had a strong reputation of upholding our United Nations pledges, especially on women's health and their right to choose. But now a Conservative member “commends Saskatoon doctors for promoting a climate for less abortion”.
The Conservatives are also working hard to cut aid to organizations that promote women's health, like the International Planned Parenthood Federation.
I call on the government to clarify its policy. Canada cannot achieve its millennium development goals in women's health and in reducing violence against women if the government continues to target these organizations and the dedicated professionals who work in the field of women's health in Canada and abroad.