Hansard
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 1 - 15 of 26
View Jim Maloway Profile
NDP (MB)
View Jim Maloway Profile
2010-06-10 11:21 [p.3644]
Mr. Speaker, I am really surprised by the government's priorities. It is closing down prison farms and pushing the Canada-Colombia free trade deal. Now its next big topic is a centralized national securities regulator, which by the way, it has to refer to the Supreme Court before moving it forward. As the member pointed out, it has spent $300 million already on something that may be largely unnecessary.
This matter is not only about Quebec. The province of Manitoba for at least the last 10 years, maybe more, has definitely been looking at this issue and is definitely opposed to it. The province of Alberta is very concerned about what will happen to its financial services sector as a result of this. My question would be where B.C. is in all of this. Why is B.C. not interested in questioning this whole idea? Why is it only Quebec, Alberta, and Manitoba at this point?
Fundamentally, it is not necessarily the structures that count; it is the people running the structures. The different regulators in the United States and Canada have all been asleep at the switch. They tend to hire people from the very industries they are there to regulate. That is not the way we should be setting up our securities commissions.
View Jim Maloway Profile
NDP (MB)
View Jim Maloway Profile
2010-06-10 12:11 [p.3651]
Madam Speaker, I think the member has correctly pointed out in his speech that the United Kingdom and the United States have a single regulator, and they still had to bail out their banks.
This really gets to the point that while Canada has tough laws to combat fraud and unfair practices, what we need is proper enforcement. I have always observed and said that if we keep hiring the regulators from the companies that they are supposed to be regulating, then we will essentially have an insider system, a system that is basically asleep at the switch. That is essentially what has happened here.
It is not so much the structure that we are dealing with; it is the people who are in the structure. Regardless of which system we have, if we do not hire enforcement-oriented people, and we simply hire industry insiders to be the regulators, then we are going to continue to have these problems.
The fact of the matter is that either side can present good arguments. There are jurisdictional issues here. This issue has been going on for many years. I predict that it will be decided in favour of the provinces because that is where it has been for the last 100 years.
I would like to ask the member, would he like to comment on that whole question about the type of enforcement, and whether or not it is the people who are doing the enforcing that is the problem?
View Jim Maloway Profile
NDP (MB)
View Jim Maloway Profile
2010-06-10 13:13 [p.3658]
Madam Speaker, it is very clear that the federal government is simply taking advantage of the economic crisis to push this argument. We all know that the idea of a national securities regulator has been around since 1935 with the royal commission. That was some 75 years ago. It has been discussed. There was a five-year study done in 1973. In 1988 there were more initiatives in this area and then again in the mid-1990s. There is nothing new here.
The fact is the passport system, which many members have spoken about, only came into effect in 2006. Manitoba joined the passport system in 2006. It has been mentioned many times that the passport system works very well in this regard. The Manitoba government is 100% in favour of it. However, the Manitoba government has been dead set against the idea of getting involved with a national securities regulator for about 10 or 15 years now.
This is not only a Quebec issue; it is a Manitoba issue and an Alberta issue. In fact, last week, some major corporate executives in Alberta came out strongly against this idea because there would be job losses in Alberta. For those members of the Conservative Alberta caucus, who are looking over their backs at the wild rose chasing after them, they ought to pay some more attention to this. A lot of business people in Alberta are not supportive of what the government is doing. The government is gradually losing touch with the voters who it claims to be representing.
View Candice Hoeppner Profile
CPC (MB)
View Candice Hoeppner Profile
2010-05-31 20:44 [p.3203]
Madam Chair, I was wondering if the minister could comment on the Arctic and the north. This is an area that unfortunately was neglected under previous governments and it is an area that our government made a priority from the very onset when we were first elected into government.
I am wondering if the minister could comment on our strategy for the north, specifically in two areas: the people in the north, as well as our natural resources. Could the minister tell us what our government is doing in regard to and in response to the north and the Arctic?
View Jim Maloway Profile
NDP (MB)
View Jim Maloway Profile
2010-03-23 11:04 [p.792]
Madam Speaker, while we in the NDP welcome this new-found interest in the health of mothers and children in the developing world, we would also like to bring the focus back to the situation of women and children in Canada. Canada is among the wealthiest nations in the world, yet 70% of Inuit preschool children live in homes where there is not 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 has committed to catching up with other wealthy nations on maternal aid, will it commit to putting women and children first in Canada as well?
View Rod Bruinooge Profile
CPC (MB)
View Rod Bruinooge Profile
2010-03-23 11:32 [p.795]
Madam Speaker, I agree that our country should achieve the said 0.7% of GDP. Would the member expand on one part of her speech? She referred to existing pregnancy interruption legislation in Canada. I would appreciate it if she could perhaps give some examples of that.
View Jim Maloway Profile
NDP (MB)
View Jim Maloway Profile
2010-03-23 12:17 [p.802]
Mr. Speaker, over the last 40 years of successive Liberal governments that have promised 0.7% of gross national income would be contributed to developing nations, never, in fact, met those targets.
Earlier today, the minister said that she and the government could not support the resolution because it was anti-American and that it would reopen the abortion debate.
Would the member like to comment on the government's excuse that it cannot support the resolution today because it is anti-American?
View Candice Hoeppner Profile
CPC (MB)
View Candice Hoeppner Profile
2010-03-23 12:18 [p.802]
Mr. Speaker, I was not able to hear the member's entire speech but I came into the House when she started to mention the plight of aboriginal women and women in Canada having babies. I can agree with her because I lived on a first nations reserve for three years. I had my second baby while on that reserve and had to travel six hours away.
The member makes a very good point. It is important for our government to look at ways to help improve access to health care for women and men living in remote communities.
I want to come back to the motion. Does the member believe that the women who are in these impoverished nations where there is not access to adequate health care and where the government support is not there for nutrition and clean water, that it will help mothers and young children if we can increase and have a real concerted effort as the G8 group to help these women and children?
View Candice Hoeppner Profile
CPC (MB)
View Candice Hoeppner Profile
2010-03-23 12:35 [p.804]
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank you for the opportunity to address this issue and to inform the House that I will be splitting my time with the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.
The motion before the House deals with what we do with our international development assistance and our desire to focus on maternal and child health at this year's G8 summit. We will be voting against this motion, as it is a transparent attempt to reopen the abortion debate, which we said we had no intention of getting into. By voting against the motion we are proving that we will not reopen the abortion debate. In addition, the motion contains rash and extreme anti-American rhetoric that we cannot, as a matter of foreign policy, support.
As the members opposite should know, the mandate of the Canadian International Development Agency is to reduce poverty in developing countries, especially among the most vulnerable populations, including women and children. To do so, the Government of Canada has committed to making Canada's international assistance more targeted and effective, and to improve the reporting of results to Canadians. We are untying aid, we are becoming more focused and we have identified and are implementing thematic priorities that guide development work.
For decades it was common practice by donors to pledge their aid with strings attached, requiring that goods and services be acquired in the donor country. The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development estimates that tied aid makes international contributions 30% to 35% less effective. In April 2008, Canada fully untied its food aid. Agencies such as the World Food Programme can now use Canada's money and buy the appropriate food at the best prices in the areas closest to the need. In addition, Canada announced last September that it would fully untie all aid in 2012-13.
As well, for far too long, Canada's bilateral aid was spread very thinly among many countries and the results were very difficult to assess. That is why CIDA committed to investing 80% of its bilateral resources in 20 countries. Our intent is to improve coordination, achieve greater results and provide more targeted resources to those who are in need. Our countries of focus are developing countries where we think Canada can have the greatest impact, including a limited number of states in crisis and transition, like Afghanistan, Haiti and Sudan. Overall the government chose the 20 countries based on their real needs, their ability to use aid effectively and their alignment with Government of Canada priorities. We are also decentralizing more staff to the field, giving us direct access to our partner governments and organizations.
At the same time, other countries continue to receive Canadian development assistance in various ways: through humanitarian assistance, through multilateral channels like United Nations organizations, and through the support of Canadian NGOs with a presence in many developing countries.
To give our international assistance greater impact, CIDA is focusing its work on three main themes: stimulating sustainable economic growth, increasing food security and securing the future of youth and children. This last theme, children and youth, is central to the motion before us today. Economic growth is the key to self-reliance. There is no doubt that developing country economies need access to the global economy and to infrastructure to bring their products to market, whether in other parts of the country, the region, or internationally.
Regarding food security, Canada has shown consistent leadership in responding to food security needs in the developing world. The announcement of CIDA's new food security strategy on World Food Day last October 16 by the Minister of International Cooperation demonstrates our renewed and strengthened commitment to this critical issue. Yet food security is also one of the most important and preventable obstacles to alleviating poverty. That is why CIDA's food security strategy will focus on increasing the availability of and access to quality nutritious food, as well as increasing the stability of food supplies and supporting improved governance of the global food system.
To achieve these goals CIDA will concentrate its efforts over the next three years on sustainable agricultural development, food assistance and nutrition, and research and innovation.
CIDA's third thematic area is children and youth.
Canada recognizes that children and youth are key agents of change in these developing countries, but they also shoulder some of the world's most pressing challenges. Focusing on children and youth is one of the best ways to achieve long-term development and poverty reduction.
CIDA's aim is to achieve concrete results that will make a significant sustainable difference in the lives of children and youth. Special attention will be focused on young women and girls, because investment in girls and women brings great social and economic returns to these societies.
On Universal Children's Day last November 20, our government unveiled CIDA's children and youth strategy. It identified three paths for action: child survival, including maternal health; access to quality education, particularly for girls; and safety and security of children and youth.
Helping developing countries achieve their educational goals has been a key part of CIDA's work for many years. Going forward CIDA will promote access to basic education of good quality so that children can complete the first 10 years of school and gain the knowledge and skills they need to contribute to their families and communities.
CIDA's new strategy also includes measures to create a safe and secure environment for children to learn and grow in and become productive members of their society. All children have the right to be healthy, receive quality education and grow up in a safe and secure society. CIDA is committed to helping children and youth in developing countries to attain their full potential to become the strong, positive and engaged citizens of tomorrow.
Regarding maternal health, we will work with G8 members and partner countries, as well as with Canadian civil society and international organizations with expertise in this area to develop the best approach. A development ministerial meeting will be held in Halifax April 26 to 28 to further develop the initiative in preparation for the leaders' summit in June.
Fundamental to any approach is to ensure that our development dollars are being used efficiently and effectively in order to maximize and achieve tangible results.
Together, working with other nations and aid agencies on the ground where the need is greatest, we can make this an achievable goal. We owe it to our Canadian taxpayers and we owe it to the millions of women and children who need our help the most.
CIDA will refocus programming to support efforts that ensure that children have the best possible start in life by putting in place programs and projects that have a positive impact on child survival and maternal health.
View Candice Hoeppner Profile
CPC (MB)
View Candice Hoeppner Profile
2010-03-23 12:45 [p.806]
Mr. Speaker, the member mentioned access to abortions. Let me be very clear with my hon. colleague that we are not willing to reopen the abortion debate and we will not reopen the abortion debate. We realize that members opposite want to open that debate. The Leader of the Opposition said it. The member just said he wants to talk about abortion. We will not talk about the abortion issue.
This is about helping women and children in some of the poorest countries in the world who are dying. We want to give them food. We want to help them with clean water and with health delivery.
The motion that is before us is a rogue. It is transparent. The hon. member just brought to light exactly what those members want to talk about and that is abortion. We will not go there.
View Jim Maloway Profile
NDP (MB)
View Jim Maloway Profile
2010-03-23 12:46 [p.806]
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.
View Candice Hoeppner Profile
CPC (MB)
View Candice Hoeppner Profile
2010-03-23 12:47 [p.806]
Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that my hon. colleague from Manitoba needs to read the motion. Not only does it have anti-American sentiment and rhetoric in it, but it also refers to failed Liberal policy.
The member talked about supporting Liberal policy. The Liberals did nothing to help women. We have increased funding under CIDA.
There are many things in this motion that are incorrect. It is a transparent motion that wants to dredge up an old debate. Apart from that, it is a bad motion. If members opposite would read the motion, they would see very clearly that it is a bad motion and we will not support it.
View Candice Hoeppner Profile
CPC (MB)
View Candice Hoeppner Profile
2010-03-23 12:48 [p.806]
Mr. Speaker, unfortunately the only thing that seems to occupy the minds of the opposition members is political expediency and scoring a political point. They do not really care what price has to be paid and at whose cost, they want to score a political point, and that is too bad.
We will stay focused on helping women and children throughout the world who need help.
View Jim Maloway Profile
NDP (MB)
View Jim Maloway Profile
2010-03-23 13:30 [p.812]
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?
View Rod Bruinooge Profile
CPC (MB)
View Rod Bruinooge Profile
2010-03-23 15:27 [p.830]
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?
Results: 1 - 15 of 26 | Page: 1 of 2

1
2
>
>|
Export As: XML CSV RSS

For more data options, please see Open Data