Committee
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 879
View Bernard Trottier Profile
CPC (ON)
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
My thanks to the guests for being here today.
Following on Ms. Laverdière's questions, I am going to try to understand a little more about the development of a malaria vaccine.
What is the difference between malaria and other diseases afflicting the world?
Are we seeing mutations in the disease? Are we still trying to develop new vaccines. In what way does the nature of malaria make that task so difficult?
My colleague the senator could begin, perhaps.
View Bernard Trottier Profile
CPC (ON)
So it’s complicated, it’s difficult, but it is an objective that we need to have. This research still needs to continue.
We can do a lot of things for prevention, things that are not expensive, as you said, because it will likely be very difficult to eradicate malaria completely.
View Bernard Trottier Profile
CPC (ON)
Okay. Thank you.
Where are we on treatment? In the documents provided by MMV, I read that African children can have malaria six times a year. Does that mean that it is treated six times a year with the same drugs? Is treatment for malaria being improved? I remember hearing that the success rates of the treatments were not very high. Are there tangible measures showing that the treatment is now much more effective than before?
View Bernard Trottier Profile
CPC (ON)
Is the objective a 100% success rate? Is that a target?
View Bernard Trottier Profile
CPC (ON)
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thanks again to all our guests for being here today.
I wanted to talk about the Trans-Pacific Partnership, because we all know there have been extensive negotiations there. Also, when you think about how comprehensive this could be and look at other trade arrangements—for example, Canada and Europe, where some trade arrangements have gone beyond where NAFTA is—there are two schools of thought.
One is that NAFTA becomes obsolete and that the TPP would just supersede NAFTA, from a trade standpoint.
Another school of thought, though, is that because you have 12 partners negotiating, it gets very watered down. It's difficult to come to an agreement amongst 12 partners. You just have to witness some of the negotiations in the Doha round at the WTO.
Mr. Jacobson, could you maybe comment on some of your views? Where do you think TPP is going? Also, if it ends up superseding NAFTA, does North America then become less of a trade zone and more of a focus for other things, such as security, academic exchanges, and so on?
View Bernard Trottier Profile
CPC (ON)
Maybe Ambassador Suarez could comment. Do the three countries of North America need to get together and present more of a united front going into TPP? Is that something we need to spend more time on in the coming months?
View Bernard Trottier Profile
CPC (ON)
Mr. Miller and Mr. Dillon, I'd like to get some comments on government procurement policies.
I know we like to focus on the irritants. We obviously have a very healthy trade arrangement in North America, but there are government procurement policies and specifically Buy America policies.
What are the things that we as a committee, if we're giving advice to our North American leaders, can focus on realistically in terms of government procurement policies to really improve the lot of all taxpayers in all three of our countries when it comes to being able to buy things on behalf of the government?
View Bernard Trottier Profile
CPC (ON)
Thank you very much.
View Bernard Trottier Profile
CPC (ON)
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you to our guests for being here today and for providing testimony. I think this is valuable input for the upcoming North American leaders' summit.
Your points are well taken, that we often take our relationships with the United States and Mexico for granted just because they're so present and so near and maybe less exotic than some of our other relationships. I'd describe our relationships with both countries as strong and very mature. I know we often focus on the irritants, but we do need to recognize that we have some tremendous strengths in terms of our relationships with these countries.
I'd like to comment on the Canada-Mexico relationship, for one. I happen to be chair of our Canada-Mexico Parliamentary Friendship Group. I've had recommendations similar to Mr. Wilson's, that a North American parliamentary group might be useful. Mexico is our third-largest trading partner—I think a lot of Canadians are unaware of that—and it doesn't happen by accident. It's because of that maturity, that relationship, things that Mexicans buy from us, things that we buy from Mexicans, and strong person-to-person ties between the two countries.
On the visas in particular, though, I've had frequent discussions with the Mexicans about that. In 2009 there were 10,000 refugee claims in Canada, which resulted in a tremendous cost to Canada. Some estimates put each claim at about $50,000 in terms of social services, health care, consular services, and ultimately some deportation costs. It ended up costing Canada about half a billion dollars in one year alone. In terms of the offset for tourism, it's hard to see where there would be much of an offset. We just need to understand the Canadian point of view. I know a lot of the Canadian media took the Mexican side in those discussions, and I think the Canadian side needs to be understood.
I do appreciate the recommendations about moving forward, accelerating the progress on the electronic travel authorization and the trilateral trusted traveller program, because that's really critical. Right now our embassies in Mexico can process a visa in less than a week, and it's $100. People, especially higher-end tourists who really want to come to Canada to ski at Whistler, let's say, will pay the $100 and continue to come. Ultimately, I think our goal is for the visa relationship to be similar to that of Chile, where we've removed the visa, but it's based on some very fundamental changes in Mexico around crime rates and socio-economic factors. That doesn't happen overnight.
I do have a question. I think NAFTA is stronger because it's a three-way relationship as opposed to two-way. I think a good example of that is country-of-origin labelling. I think Canada and Mexico had a very common cause, and we made our case very forcefully at the World Trade Organization. Even though that wasn't a NAFTA tribunal—it was the World Trade Organization—I think with our common cause we were able to have a certain influence over U.S. policy-making.
To all of our panellists, is NAFTA stronger because it's a three-way relationship rather than a two-way relationship? In other words, is it less asymmetrical? Can we get more things done in a three-way relationship than we could in the previous two-way relationship we had with the United States?
Perhaps I would start with you, Mr. Wilson. I know you were very involved in Canada-U.S. free trade. Can you talk about how things are perhaps stronger now that it's a three-way relationship?
View Bernard Trottier Profile
CPC (ON)
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you for coming in today.
I really appreciated your presentations. One thing I sensed in all of your presentations was a certain optimism. I know it's a real challenging world out there, and it can become very frustrating. Especially when I think about your large organizations, with all of your volunteers, how do you keep that optimism? If you take the long view and you look at the last 50 or even 100 years of human history, you see that in certain developments—access to drinking water, primary education, infection rates—we are actually making headway in many parts of the world.
All of your organizations have been successful in various ways. I think one of the things your organizations and your individual volunteers bring is this skill set or this diversity of backgrounds that you're able to deploy and focus. Management thinker Peter Drucker talked about SMART goals: specific, measurable, achievable, relevant, and time-bound goals. There are elements of all of that when you describe what you're doing as being very achievable. I think about the eradication of polio; we know it's achievable. You have a certain timeframe you want to do it by, and that's why you're able to get people to focus on these things.
Mr. Styles, you mentioned that you're in discussion with the Government of Canada right now. You have partners around the world in terms of different countries that you're operating in. When you're discussing with the Government of Canada, are there calls for proposals? Are they looking at other organizations? Is it a competitive bidding process? I always say that we don't fund NGOs, we fund programs and projects, and then we look at who is the best partner to deal with. How is that discussion taking place with Rotary right now?
View Bernard Trottier Profile
CPC (ON)
Okay.
At Kiwanis, you mentioned there was a partnership with UNICEF and also with the Government of Canada. How does UNICEF decide whom to partner with? There are other service organizations around the world. How do they arrive at that decision? Or is there more than one organization they're partnering with on this program on neonatal tetanus that you described?
View Bernard Trottier Profile
CPC (ON)
I see.
Ms. Kerby, you talked about this idea of goal-setting and setting action plans to achieve those goals. How did you arrive at your areas of focus? There were different things that were very measurable, again, and very specific in certain countries. What's the planning process at Canadian Feed The Children to figure out the goals you're going to set and how to mobilize your organization to try to achieve those goals?
View Bernard Trottier Profile
CPC (ON)
Thank you very much.
View Bernard Trottier Profile
CPC (ON)
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you for being here today with us.
Ms. Wright, I appreciated some of your comments and observation that China today is not the China that negotiated the joint declaration. A lot has happened since then, and at the time, Deng Xiaoping was unafraid of Hong Kong separateness. Today I think there's a certain reluctance to respect Hong Kong's unique identity for other reasons that are internal to China.
However, the fact of the matter is that, as you pointed out, this is a formal treaty recognized by the UN and other entities. The other important signatory to this treaty is the United Kingdom, and I was wondering if you could comment on what the United Kingdom has been doing to ensure that the treaty it entered into with China is being enforced.
I know there's an election right now in the U.K. and political signals might change. But over the last 15 years or so, what has the U.K. been doing to make sure that its treaty is being enforced?
Results: 1 - 15 of 879 | Page: 1 of 59

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
>
>|
Export As: XML CSV RSS

For more data options, please see Open Data