Rosane Doré Lefebvre

[Parliamentary Precinct Security, February 16th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Pierrefonds—Dollard for her question because this is key to the amendment that we want to make to the Conservatives' main motion about security on Parliament Hill.

In his 2012 report, the Auditor General said we should have better security. Canadians might not know this, but currently, we have House of Commons security and Senate security. To improve security on Parliament Hill, the Auditor General recommended merging the two or at least ensuring better communication between them.

That is what the official opposition's amendment to the motion is about today. We have to make sure that the entire parliamentary precinct is working together to ensure absolute security everywhere on Parliament Hill. I think this could solve a lot of problems instead of creating more problems by adding an external force that would report directly to the government instead of to you, Mr. Speaker.

I believe that we can all work together. We work with very generous constables who work extremely well. Why not trust them and implement the Auditor General's recommendations?

[Parliamentary Precinct Security, February 16th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, that is a very good question from my colleague from Marc-Aurèle-Fortin. He raised some very interesting points.

I think that the government is completely confused about this issue. I do not think it knows exactly what it wants to do, and it is using a number of events for political gain, which is sad.

The day after the attacks on Parliament Hill, or even in the statements that were made after other attacks, when we came back to the House on October 23, it was clear that everyone wanted to work together to keep all Canadians safe. Together we all had the same ultimate goal.

The Conservatives are working and playing games on their own. They could not care less about what is going on and what kind of impact it could have. There is a lot of confusion. I do not think they have truly thought through everything that could be included in this motion.

When this motion was moved, the RCMP said that it was not prepared to take over security on Parliament Hill, which is twice as bad.

[Parliamentary Precinct Security, February 16th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, as a member of Parliament, I would rather rise in the House under different circumstances to discuss our safety and the incredible work that Parliament's security guards do. Nevertheless, I will do it because the government is once again—this is a record—using time allocation on an extremely important motion that affects all members of the House.

Before starting my speech, I would like to say a few words about the incredible work that all of the constables working in Parliament do, be it today, before October 22, or on October 22 in particular. I have never for a moment felt unsafe here. They do amazing work.

They have received incredible training. I doubt that anyone in the world is trained better than them for this kind of work, and I thank them. It is always a pleasure to see them do their work every day. They put their lives on the line, and they put our safety first, not theirs, so the least we can do is honour the work they do every day; today I would like to thank them.

At the same time, we are talking a lot about the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, since this motion seeks to give the RCMP control over security on Parliament Hill. I do not want members to engage in demagoguery in this debate. RCMP officers also do a fantastic job on the ground, in places where they are supposed to do it. They protect the lives of Canadians in our country's communities and they do an incredible job.

I am fortunate to be a member of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security and to share responsibility for the public safety file for the official opposition with my colleague from Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca. We have had the opportunity to meet RCMP officers when examining bills or holding discussions on a variety of topics. I know that they have a very difficult job to do on the ground, but they do it well. We saw a good example of this last week in Halifax when they thwarted what could have been a serious attack in a Halifax shopping centre. By thwarting that attack, they really did a great job of making sure everyone was safe.

I want to thank our RCMP officers for the excellent work that they do, which is greatly appreciated by all Canadians. It is important to point that out here because we do not want to engage in demagoguery by saying that one is better than the other. The constables on Parliament Hill and the RCMP are two extremely different entities that do very different jobs. However, it is important to point out that they both do their jobs well. Why? Because the motion proposes that the RCMP take control of parliamentary security.

I understand that an extremely serious incident occurred on October 22. It is making us rethink how security works on Parliament Hill.

All parties in the House agree that our security needs to be modernized a little. One suggestion that has been made repeatedly is that we must ensure that security for the House of Commons and the Senate work together. We often hear that in the hallways, where we discuss it as parliamentarians. I think that makes sense.

The thing about this motion that does not make sense is that at present, our security service reports to Parliament as a whole. Security therefore reports to all parliamentarians. It goes through you, Mr. Speaker, and it also goes through our sergeant-at-arms. Those individuals have control over what happens and they ensure our safety. They also protect our privilege as parliamentarians, which is very important. That is how it works here, but not only here. That is also how it works in practically every country with a parliamentary system.

The government is trying to impose its decision. An article in The Globe and Mail said that the paper learned from a reliable source that the decision to concentrate all security powers within the RCMP is being driven by the Prime Minister himself. The fact is, the RCMP does not report to Parliament; it reports to the government.

Thus, the government is interfering in these powers in a way that is beyond all belief. Security within the House works very well at this time. All it needs is the right tools and a strong framework to run smoothly. What are the Conservatives doing? They are taking away the Speaker's powers and handing them over directly to the government across the way, which wants to control everything that happens on Parliament Hill. It makes no sense. No one even knows if the motion as moved is constitutional or what our rights are as parliamentarians in all of this.

As the official opposition, we decided to do our job, unlike the government. We examined the motion as moved and found that the way it was worded was not fair and that in order to ensure that the powers of the parliamentary security staff remain within the hands of the House of Commons, we had to modify it. We want to ensure that the motion is constitutional and that the powers are not all mixed up, which is what the Conservatives want. Thus, we want to amend the motion.

I would like to read the main motion with our proposed amendment. I think it makes perfect sense:

That this House recognize the necessity of fully integrated security throughout the Parliamentary precinct and the grounds of Parliament Hill, as recommended by the Auditor General in his 2012 report and as exists in other peer legislatures; and call on the Speaker, in coordination with his counterpart in the Senate, to prepare and execute, without delay, plans to fully integrate the work of all partners providing operational security throughout the Parliamentary precinct and the grounds of Parliament Hill, while respecting the privileges, immunities and powers of the respective Houses, including the ultimate authority of the Speakers of the Senate and House of Commons over access and security of Parliament and ensuring the continued employment of our existing and respected Parliamentary Security staff, whose exemplary work on October 22, 2014, quickly brought an end to the security threat on Parliament Hill.

I think that really captures what we are looking for as parliamentarians. This is really about studying a motion that the government just plain threw in our face. The motion has not been studied in a fair and equitable manner. It also has nothing to do with the recommendations made by the Auditor General in 2012, which was long before the attack on Parliament Hill.

The main motion with our amendment respects not only our privileges as parliamentarians, but also the work of the constables on Parliament Hill.

I hope the Conservatives will vote in favour of this amendment.

Before I continue, I would like to say that I will be sharing my time with the wonderful member for Louis-Hébert, my renowned colleague from the Quebec City region, who I am sure will give an excellent speech.

As I was saying, it is important to study this motion. I hope that the government will consider our amendment, because we have been asking the members on the other side of the House all kinds of questions, but we still do not know whether the government will vote for or against the amendment.

I sincerely hope that I will see hon. members from the other side of the House rise, not just to ask me questions, but also to tell me that they will support or oppose our amendment—which, in fact, provides the perfect opportunity for everyone to agree on the importance of keeping Canadians safe. Our safety is important, but let us entrust the security guards who are here with our safety. Let us trust in their abilities. They are the best people to ensure the safety of Parliament Hill, not just for us parliamentarians, but also for the people who come to visit us every day. It is extremely important for us to trust them and also to trust the Speaker—I say that for the benefit of the members across the way—because these are powers that are in his hands to protect the immunity of the House.

I see that I am running out of time. Time flies when we are talking about good things such as the amendment proposed by the official opposition.

I look forward to getting questions that I hope will come from the government side. I also hope that the Conservatives will realize that it is important for all of us to work together to ensure that we have the best possible motion and not put all our eggs in one basket.

[Parliamentary Precinct Security, February 16th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I am sad to see how full of contradictions the other side of the House is when it comes to House of Commons security. I believe that on both sides of the House, we agree that Parliament's security officers are doing an outstanding job. They are probably the best trained people in the world, certainly in Canada, to keep us safe.

The problem now is that the government is imposing time allocation on us for a bill that should have never come from the government. This violates the right of the Speaker of the House. House of Commons security should not come under the government; it should come under the Speaker of the House. The government is overstepping the Speaker's powers.

I have so many things to say. I hope to have the opportunity to talk about the bill, because I feel very strongly about it.

I must say that I am extremely disappointed to see that the government is imposing time allocation on an issue as important as this. We do not even know whether this motion is constitutional. We do not know why it is coming from the government or why the Speaker's powers are being overstepped.

I would also like to know why the government does not trust our security officers, who work for us every day and put their lives on the line to protect us. Why?

[Public Safety, February 16th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, terrorist threats can take many forms and arise for many different reasons. The plot in Halifax, which was brilliantly foiled by RCMP officers over the weekend, is an excellent example.

However, many people were surprised to hear the minister say that it was not considered terrorism because it was not culturally motivated. Does the minister realize that the definition of terrorism in Canada includes political, religious and ideological motives, and not cultural motives?

[Public Safety, February 16th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, the fact that the Prime Minister has decided not to answer these important questions about the bill does not inspire any confidence. Canadians deserve to know all the details of what the Conservatives are proposing.

Bill C-51 would extend CSIS' powers beyond intelligence activities, to enable the agency to disrupt terrorist acts before they happen.

As we have asked repeatedly, can the minister give us a single example of activities that will be prohibited from now on?

[National Day of the Midwife Act, February 6th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, today, I would like to once again thank my colleagues in the House, including my Conservative colleague from Kootenay—Columbia and my Liberal colleague from St. Paul's. They have just given excellent speeches about what midwifery is, the impact it has on our society and all of the positive effects it has on the health of the mother and the child.

I would also like to thank all of my colleagues who shared their personal experiences. It is really nice when we manage to pass something in the House, and to see that we all agree on a bill that seeks to advance an issue as important as midwifery in Canada.

I would therefore like to thank my colleagues on all sides of the House, on the government side, the Liberal side and all of the independent members. The vote was unanimous. I hope that this will happen again. Let us continue to work together like this on important issues in the hopes that we can continue to make a lot of progress in the future.

[National Day of the Midwife Act, February 6th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague opposite for sharing his experience with us. It is very touching to hear the experiences that some of my colleagues have had with midwives.

I completely agree with the member. It is fitting that we recognize the incredible work done by midwives by establishing the national day of the midwife here in Canada, as I believe all of us in the House want to do, and that we also recognize that these women have an incredible knowledge of birthing. Midwives go through a lengthy university training process and have incredible experience in the health field. They are recognized around the world for their services. They often give speeches in other countries, and they even go to other countries to teach all the skills they have acquired here.

We are very fortunate in Canada to have such experienced health care professionals who have such a diverse university education. I thank them for that.

[National Day of the Midwife Act, February 6th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Saanich—Gulf Islands for supporting Bill C-608.

Many of my colleagues in the House have stopped me here in the House, in the hallways or even at the Standing Committee on Health to tell me about their experiences during a birth with a midwife. It is so nice to be able to share that experience together, so that we can better understand midwifery and what that profession entails, and see that it is an option. People do not have to adopt the traditional model. I am paraphrasing here because I think the hospital model is considered to be traditional. It is just great to see how those birthing experiences can vary from one person to another and that they are often wonderful experiences.

I thank my colleague from Saanich—Gulf Islands. She is right: we need to reclaim the birthing experience.

[National Day of the Midwife Act, February 6th, 2015]

moved that the bill be now read the third time and passed.

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to be in the House today to debate my Bill C-608, the National Day of the Midwife Act.

This has been quite the saga. I am extremely proud that all parties in the House voted unanimously at second reading to send the bill to committee. That was good teamwork, and it is wonderful to see that our Parliament can function and that we can work together on great bills such as the one to establish a national day of the midwife.

First of all, I must thank my colleague from Parkdale—High Park, because in the beginning, she was the one who decided to introduce this bill in the House of Commons. She brought forward the first version and began the debate with members of other parties in the House—Conservatives, Liberals and independents—and with experts and the people directly affected, the midwifery associations. I must commend the work done by my colleague from Parkdale—High Park, because she does not take much credit for it. However, because of her groundwork, today we are talking about a national day of the midwife.

I would like to provide a bit of background, because it shows that MPs are very good at doing the groundwork, representing their constituents and bringing their ideas to Parliament. When my colleague was going door to door, she met a woman belonging to a midwifery association who told her about the important work midwives do. She told the member for Parkdale—High Park about their intentions and the fact that midwifery was not yet recognized in every Canadian province and territory, but that they were working on it.

Canadian universities have some of the best midwifery training programs in the world. We can also be proud of that. There are currently 1,300 midwives in Canada, and only 2% to 5% of the population has access to their services. It is thus very difficult and the demand is growing. However, every year, more and more midwives are entering the workforce, and we can only be very proud.

My colleague saw all that potential. She was determined that we should recognize the work of midwives and help them further themselves. She decided to work with people in her riding and across the country to establish a national day of the midwife. I am extremely proud to take up the torch and ensure that this bill is passed as soon as possible. However, I would be remiss if I did not acknowledge her tremendous work on the ground.

As I said, all the parties in the House voted in favour of this bill. We had the chance to go to committee. I presented my bill to the hon. members of the Standing Committee on Health, where it was very well received. They also agreed to hear from witnesses directly affected by this bill. I had the opportunity to appear with the Canadian Association of Midwives and the National Aboriginal Council of Midwives, which also does extraordinary work.

I want to take few minutes to talk about the NACM, because this bill affects them a great deal. Access to midwifery services is particularly crucial in rural and remote communities, including among first nations.

Currently, when a women living on reserve becomes pregnant, the delivery process is not necessarily the same as in large urban centres. Here, the choice is much simpler. We can choose to be seen by a doctor, we can go to the hospital and be accompanied by a doula, or we can give birth at home or at a birthing centre with a midwife. We have a lot of options. Access to some of these options is still limited, but we have them.

For first nations, it is much more complicated.

A few weeks before giving birth, a pregnant woman has to be airlifted to a large urban centre. She is alone. She does not have her family, her spouse or her children with her. She is far away from her family during those final critical weeks. It is not only extremely sad, but downright terrible that these sorts of things are happening in a country as big and as rich as ours.

A good example that I was given was to imagine a woman who is giving birth to her first child. Like my colleague from Beauharnois—Salaberry and all of the other members who are parents, I know that you do not really know what to expect when you are expecting your first child. It can be extremely stressful. You ask yourself a thousand questions. You read books, watch films and talk to people you know to find out how it is going to go. The last weeks are extremely critical, as are the first few days after the delivery.

Women who are sent to large urban centres are alone. They do not have their family, friends, grandmother, mother or aunt to talk to and consult to find out if what is happening is normal. When they give birth, they are isolated in a large urban centre where they do not know anyone. They are not with their spouse.

The days following delivery can be very difficult. For example, a woman who wants to breastfeed may have breastfeeding problems or questions about breastfeeding in general. She cannot be with her own mother who could have shared her own experience. That is very difficult on these women. They return to their communities, where there is no connection to the birth or to what happened. It is extremely difficult for the family, the woman and the community in general.

We are trying to reintegrate the birthing process into communities, because about 95% of pregnancies are considered normal. There is therefore no need to send women who are preparing to give birth to major urban centres. They can give birth in their community with midwives. This issue is slowly being addressed, based on the province or area where the community is located. However, there is still a long way to go.

I am very pleased to see that all of Parliament has decided that it is very important to acknowledge the incredible work that midwives do. Whether we are talking about midwives in first nations communities or midwives in general all across the country, it is extremely important to acknowledge the work that they do.

Today I simply wanted to rise in the House to thank my colleagues for the good work they are doing and for their goodwill on this bill. I noticed that there was a significant interest in continuing the debate on funding for midwives and in perhaps reviewing the birthing process for women from rural and remote communities.

I saw that all parties in the House showed openness on this issue, and I am extremely proud. I hope that this will continue. If my colleagues once again vote in favour of this bill at third reading, the next step will be the Senate. That will be a whole other experience. For now, I would like to thank Parliament. Why not take this bill as an excellent example of how the opposition and the government can work side by side, and why not continue in this direction for future bills?