James Lunney

[Business of Supply, February 2nd, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, the member has himself tangled up a bit here. The compensation package was always for the impacts of the agreement. The agreement has not come into effect yet. It has to be ratified in the EU. It has 28 member states, so it is going to take time to work through the process. Of course, there are no impacts at the present time. In fact, the member in his remarks confirmed that. He said it was for impacts in the industry, and then he went on to say, when he quoted Mr. Ivison, that in fact it was for demonstrable impacts. In fact, that is the Government of Canada's position. The details were to be worked out before CETA came into effect. That would be right now.

Why did the member change his story partway through, when he said that actually the agreement was for giving up the MPR? That is not what was agreed to. In fact, the terms the province put forward are exactly what the Government of Canada is willing to negotiate, but that is not what the fund was set up for, and there are no demonstrable impacts at this time. Why is the member talking on both sides of the equation here?

[Business of Supply, February 2nd, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, numerous times the member referred to “lying” on the part of the government. I think that is unparliamentary. It is out of order. There are disagreements on written contracts, and the member is saying that the contracts actually should be the way people feel about them, not the way they are actually worded.

I ask the member to withdraw those remarks. They are unparliamentary.

[Business of Supply, February 2nd, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to quote Sharon Horan, 2014 chair of the St. John’s Board of Trade, who stated:

The CETA agreement provides significant opportunity for our members to do business with the affluent 500 million consumers in Europe, CETA is one of the most significant trade deals ever negotiated for Canadian business, including businesses right here in St. John’s.

Therefore, there is no negative impact at the present time. As everyone knows, the deal has not been concluded. Most of the impact from CETA would be positive and any negative impact would be compensated.

Does the member encourage or support the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador coming to the table to negotiate whatever its concerns and differences are so that the compensation can be delivered as it is intended when the time is appropriate?

[Pipeline Safety Act, January 26th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with much interest to our colleague across the way. I have a lot of respect for my hon. colleague and for most of his remarks. If I overlook the partisan nature of the last five minutes, he made some very good points.

The member mentioned that we are bringing in new measures on pipelines and an absolute liability of $1 billion. He mentioned that there is Liberal support for measures around abandoned pipelines and so on. There are a lot of good measures coming in to build on an already tremendously successful pipeline record in Canada.

I think the member noted in his speech that there are some 73,000 kilometres of pipeline in Canada. Converted to miles, it is about 45,360 miles, with a few decimal points after that. That is almost two times around the world.

I will just make this point, and then I will pose my question. We had a pipeline going through Burnaby for more than 60 years, and most people in Burnaby did not even know it was there until someone, a few years ago, inadvertently put a backhoe through the pipeline and caused a minor spill. There has been no environmental disaster.

We have had a lot of furor, particularly in the community in Burnaby and other places, about pipeline security.

We have one of the largest and most secure pipeline systems in the entire world, and I appreciate the member acknowledging that. I wonder if the member would acknowledge that there has been a lot of media hype related to pipeline security, which has raised the angst of the public, and that it is a good idea to emphasize the safety record we have in this country, one that is enviable in the world. We are looking to work with our colleagues to make sure it is even better with the legislation before us today.

[Christmas Greetings, December 11th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, 700 years before His birth, the prophet Isaiah declared that a virgin would conceive and bring forth a son and that His name would be Immanuel, God with us. Five hundred years before it happened, Micah declared that He would be born in Bethlehem, while Zechariah wrote that He would arrive in Jerusalem as a king, riding on a donkey, the price of his betrayal and the wounds on his hands.

Indeed, all of history is divided by His time on earth: B.C., A.D., B.C.E., and C.E., if one will. For millennia, He has inspired the greatest works of art, music, self-sacrifice, and service to humanity.

The Bible is His story. It remains the most-published and influential literature of all time.

While 2,000 years have passed, His life, His mission, and His resurrection continue to impact lives around the world. He is the reason for the season.

I wish all members of the House, indeed all Canadians, as many as can receive it, His peace that passes understanding. Merry Christmas.

[Business of Supply, December 3rd, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the intervention from my neighbour on Vancouver Island from the riding of Nanaimo—Cowichan.

The member mentioned the citizens' assembly back in 2004. It was actually promised by the previous Liberal government to create a citizens' assembly to look at electoral reform. That assembly, with two people from each of the 79 electoral districts, came up with a formula and they chose an MMPR formula that they then presented in the referendum. It was rejected by the people of British Columbia. It was rejected here in Ontario and it was rejected in P.E.I.

I would like to go back to British Columbia briefly. I was there in a restaurant while 100 people were in a room next door having a presentation on this, and when they came out afterward, I was having lunch with a friend, a business colleague. When I asked them what it was all about, they said it was about the new electoral referendum question. I asked them if they understood it now. They had been in there an hour. She said she had this booklet. That is the problem. If they cannot explain it to a voter in an hour, it is too complicated, and frankly, it has been rejected all over the place.

Does the member not recognize that the NDP is trying to push through something that Canadians in our province have already rejected?

[National Day of the Midwife Act, November 18th, 2014]

One of my colleagues said “That's good”. Let me explain. He perhaps was not at the luncheon I attended today where the guest speaker was the head of the Canadian Medical Association, Dr. Chris Simpson.

Dr. Simpson made an excellent presentation, basically around a national strategy for seniors' care, something that I would personally be very pleased to support. However, the keynote part of his address was about what is an increasingly common phenomenon in hospitals, something they call “code gridlock”. Code gridlock happens when the hospital is so jammed by people coming in that they have no room to admit new patients, and no room to move patients from an emergency ward up to another ward where their care would be more appropriate. They have no room to move people out of intensive care to other wards and there is no place to move patients to other institutions that might be able to handle a chronic care condition.

One hospital he mentioned set a record of seven weeks of gridlock. That backlog sabotaged the efficiency of the entire hospital.

The vast majority of childbirths are not high risk childbirths. There are very good reasons for high risk people to give birth in hospital, but the majority are low risk and midwives can provide those services in a variety of settings. Many hospitals are providing birthing rooms that have low lighting, quiet music, and room for the dad to be there.

I experienced a home birth with my second child. I can tell members that for me and others who have experienced home births, being able to hold that baby in one's own home and for the siblings to hold that baby minutes after he or she is born is an experience that not only the parents will never forget but also neither the children and the siblings. So there are other ways, and midwives are organizing in a variety of ways to see that women get the type of birth care they prefer. Some of those are water births.

I want to speak to something else that occurs in Canada. It is a disturbing trend that has been occurring for years because of hospitalization for a normal, natural process like childbirth for most women. Canada has one of the highest rates of caesarean sections in the world. I wonder why that is. Are Canadian women somehow inferior to other women? C-sections are a surgical intervention. The World Health Organization recommends maximum targets of 10% to 15%. In Canada it was 17% in 2010, and by 2010 it was 10% higher, at nearly 27%. In fiscal year 2011-12 in Ontario, it was nearly 29%, and some provinces and regions in the country were over 30%. There are legitimate reasons for the increased number of C-sections, including an older demographic, with women delaying childbirth in many cases; a trend toward more obesity, with many young mothers now more obese than they were 10 or 15 years ago; larger birthweight babies; and increasing fertility treatments, which lead to multiple births. Those all may be reasons why a C-section might be considered.

A low risk, normal pregnancy and a vaginal birth should be encouraged, which is better for the mother and the baby. Some women may wonder how I know that. Statistics confirm, as will I am sure some of the others who have spoken here, including two who are physicians, that it is undeniable that having a C-section is a much higher risk than a vaginal birth for most women. They are also more expensive. The Canadian Institute for Health Information estimates that a C-section costs about $4,600 compared to about $2,800 for a vaginal birth.

Midwives can practise in a variety of settings. They can accommodate a variety of needs not only of what the mom wants but also the dad to make that experience much more meaningful and at a much more affordable cost. We do not know what the average cost is because it varies across the country, but I understand that it is somewhere between $850 and above. That is very cost-effective compared to $4,600 for a surgical intervention. I think at a time when we are facing a health care financial crisis because our health care system is simply not sustainable on the path we are on, we need to look at cost-effective ways of delivering service. This is not just about saving dollars, but about giving women the choices they want and making childbirth a normal and healthy thing for more women.

I want to thank the member for introducing a very thoughtful bill and one that I think would not only help contain costs but also help give women, children, and families a better birthing experience.

[National Day of the Midwife Act, November 18th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I have enjoyed the debate so far this evening. I want to congratulate the member from Alfred-Pellan for introducing Bill C-608 and for the great speech she gave explaining her reasons for doing so.

It seems that I am the first male to stand to address this matter, so I want to say that I very much appreciate all of the contributions by the various women who have participated in the debate so far. However, as the token dad here, at least the first one on the male side of the House, to address the issue, I have to admit that I often say that children are a conspiracy to make their parents feel older. We live 25 or 30 years during which we feel we have not aged, and then our kids start pressing up into that area and the math does not work anymore.

My first child was born 38 years ago in Toronto at St. Michael's Hospital. It was completely natural childbirth. Amazingly, it seemed as if the medical staff, who did a fine job, had never actually seen a natural childbirth at that time.

My second one was born four years later in our own home. There was a medical doctor in attendance and a nurse who was trained as a midwife who did all the work. He just caught the baby. Childbirth is not a state of sickness for most women. It is a state of health if women have appropriate information, are well informed about the birthing process, and have someone nearby. Midwives have filled this role throughout history in most cultures.

It is very refreshing to see a move toward re-establishing midwifery in Canada. We can see from the comments made already why the need is really important. The health and well-being of pregnant women, infants, and children is of vital importance to our government. I am therefore pleased to support Bill C-608, which would increase awareness of the significant contributions of midwives to safeguarding and improving the health and well-being of women and their families.

The parliamentary secretary spoke just a few minutes ago about Canada's leadership in maternal and child health worldwide through the G20 initiative, helping to train and advance midwives in birth attendance in developing countries where maternal mortality is at alarming rates. Canada is acting to make a difference there.

Meanwhile, right here at home, midwives provide high quality care for women before, during and after childbirth. They ensure safe deliveries and provide essential newborn care. They are key primary care providers who seek to optimize the childbirth experience for women and families and work collaboratively with other health professionals. Having access to these skilled professionals to provide needed care for women, newborns, and families during the prenatal period, labour, birth, and postpartum is critical to their collective health and well-being.

Aside from the supports provided by our government enumerated by the parliamentary secretary a few moments ago, our government is also providing the largest health care transfers in Canadian history to provinces and territories to support health care services, such as midwives. These historic transfers have increased by almost 60% since we formed government and are set to reach $40 billion by the end of the decade.

Canada had 381,598 births registered last year. The overwhelming majority, 98.5%, took place in a hospital. In fact, child birth is the number one cause of hospital admission in Canada. I find that statistic astounding. Of 381,598 births, 98.5% actually took place in a hospital.

[Canadian Health Food Association, November 4th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, this year marks the 50th anniversary of the Canadian Health Food Association. As the voice of the natural health product industry in Canada, the CHFA represents manufacturers, retailers and distributors of natural health and organic products.

CHFA has become Canada's largest trade association dedicated to health products with a membership of over 1,000 businesses and operators, predominately small and medium-sized enterprises, contributing over $6 billion to the Canadian economy.

From prestigious conferences and trade shows to advocating and informing of regulatory changes, the CHFA now offers an educational course providing retail staff and suppliers an opportunity to enhance their understanding of natural health products.

As 70% of Canadians regularly consume NHPs, we see the importance of CHFA's raison d'être.

On this Natural Health Products Week, I am pleased to welcome president, Helen Long, and delegates to Ottawa, and wish them continued success in building healthy Canadians through high-quality natural health products.

[Petitions, October 10th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, the second petition is from some 150 residents of Vancouver Island asking Parliament to review the Elections Act and to devise some form of proportional representation.