Steven Blaney

[Quebec Bridge, March 24th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I have listened carefully to the speech by the member for Louis-Hébert, who gave a fine demonstration of the kind of verbiage to which the House has become accustomed over the past 20 years from the Bloc, that is, verbiage rooted in improvisation and inaction.

I should point out from the outset that I intend to vigorously oppose this motion because the people of Quebec City, Lévis, Bellechasse, Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, basically everyone in Quebec, deserve better than verbiage. They deserve action, and action is what I am interested in.

The Quebec City area is getting major investments from the federal government. I think of the National Optics Institute, which is located in his riding, and the congress centre in Lévis. I think also of the expansion of the Rouge et Or's football stadium, as well as structuring, strategic investments for the Quebec City area.

Like all Bloc members, the member for Louis-Hébert does not want to see Quebec City take its place as Quebec's national capital and does not want to see Quebec play a leadership role within the Canadian federation.

I would like him to tell me how he can once again sit on his hands in this House when action is required. He does not act, but he makes speeches that put us to sleep.

[Business of Supply, March 23rd, 2010]

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.

[Business of Supply, March 23rd, 2010]

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 ”.

[Business of Supply, March 23rd, 2010]

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.

[Business of Supply, March 23rd, 2010]

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.

[Business of Supply, March 23rd, 2010]

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.

[Leader of the Bloc Québécois, March 23rd, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, the comments made by the Bloc leader, comparing his party to the French resistance, were completely inappropriate.

He should apologize immediately, as that is an insult to the taxpayers who have been paying for his salary and driver for 20 years, not to mention the generous Canadian government pension, a golden pension, a record pension.

Speaking of pensions, the contradictions of the separatist leader do not stop there. According to the website BRANCHEZ-VOUS.com, the leader of the “resistance” allegedly has investments—where?—in the oil sands.

For the chief critic of the oil sands and their development, that is a rather gross and flagrant hypocrisy. It is good enough for his portfolio, but not for Quebec.

After 20 years, the Bloc leader should face facts, stop resisting, and see that Quebec would be better off working as part of Canada.

[Business of Supply, March 23rd, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the member across the floor. She must not have been listening when the Prime Minister said that we have an obligation to help the women and children living in the most difficult conditions around the world. That will be the focus of the G8 summit.

I would like to talk about the women and children of Quebec who are the victims of human trafficking. Newspapers are reporting more and more on this growing threat.

The hon. member had the opportunity to rise here in the House and put aside all the dogmatism and ideology she spoke of. I do not know whether she was talking about separatist ideology. I do not think that is a valid reason to refrain from standing up for women and children and opposing human trafficking.

Why did she vote against minimum sentences for criminals in our country, people who are a threat to women and children?

I hope she will be able to answer my question and, more importantly, recognize that the Conservative members of the House are standing up to defend women and children in Canada and around the world.

[La Francophonie, March 17th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, happy St. Patrick's Day.

We were very sad to hear that the people of Haiti, a founding member of la Francophonie, were hit hard by a terrible earthquake in January. While we celebrate the 40th anniversary of the International Organization of la Francophonie today, we must remember the need for solidarity with Haiti, a country that has endured so much.

Canada did its part by providing immediate financial and humanitarian assistance. We are calling for long-term mobilization of the international community, particularly countries that share the French bond, in order to rebuild Haiti, a friend to Canada.

The celebration of the 40th anniversary of la Francophonie must go hand in hand with a spirit of solidarity. La Francophonie is about more than just language and cultural diversity. It is about a set of values on which we base our work and our cooperation.

[Business of Supply, March 16th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, not surprisingly, on May 18, 1991, Lucien Bouchard said this about the Bloc: “The shorter our stay, the most successful our mission will have been.”

It is clear, however, that over time the Bloc's motto has become: “The longer we stay, the better our pensions will be.”

The member opposite has just demonstrated in pathetic fashion her lack of vision for the greater Québec—Chaudière—Appalaches area.

She really has blinders on, or I should say sunglasses so dark that she is not noticing that civil servants are being relocated to Estimauville, that Parks Canada has undertaken extensive fortification restoration work, that at the Quebec City airport—should she fly to Quebec City—investments have been made like never before during the 17 years of the Liberal-Bloc regime. There is also the congress centre in Lévis and the Super PEPS. There is clearly a long list of achievements, not to mention the tax cuts that leave more money in the pockets of taxpayers in the greater Quebec City area and across Canada.

Aside from being a professional criticizer, does the member have any positive measures to propose, instead of coming to Ottawa and lecture the government, when we are making investments and working for the people of Quebec City and Chaudières—Appalaches?