Luc Malo

[World Autism Awareness Day Act, November 23rd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, we are resuming the debate at second reading of Bill S-210, the sole purpose of which is to institute World Autism Awareness Day.

On reading the bill, which contains only one clause and several “whereas” paragraphs, it is clear that it was written by a Canadian. It is clear to me, as a Quebecker, that some of these paragraphs concern elements that fall under the jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces.

I will discuss this with my colleagues when this bill goes to the Standing Committee on Health, of which I am a member. Many of the matters that come before this particular committee for study fall under the jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces. Canadians represented by the Conservative Party, the Liberal Party and the New Democratic Party cannot seem to distinguish between matters that the federal government is responsible for and those that legislative assemblies in Quebec and the provinces are responsible for.

As Quebeckers, Bloc Québécois members feel it is important to remind people about each level of government's responsibilities. For example, in the context of the current study on human resources in health care, it is clear that training, professional associations and deployment of resources in hospitals and social services centres fall exclusively within the Government of Quebec's jurisdiction. That being said, I will address the problem “whereas” statements in committee.

I highly doubt that any member of the House would be against instituting World Autism Awareness Day. As we all know, any disorder can deeply affect those who have it and their family members. It is therefore important to give people regular reminders so that they can become more aware of the issue. We should also take time to recognize the health professionals and researchers who work to minimize suffering and find long-term solutions.

I would now like to talk about autism to begin building awareness among those listening and members of the House who may or may not be familiar with the disorder.

The information I will share was taken from the Internet. The website of the Fédération québécoise de l'autisme et des autres troubles envahissants du développement says that autistic disorder, better known as autism or Kanner's autism, is one of five pervasive developmental disorders. The other four developmental disorders are: childhood disintegrative disorder, Rett syndrome, pervasive development disorder not otherwise specified or atypical autism, and Asperger's syndrome.

I should point out that autistic disorder, pervasive development disorder not otherwise specified and Asperger's syndrome are the three most common types of pervasive developmental disorders.

According to this site, there are three categories of symptoms commonly seen with people who have pervasive developmental disorders: difficulties with verbal and non-verbal communication; difficulties with social interaction; and restricted interests and/or repetitive behaviours.

Here are some quick facts about autistic disorders: they affect 4.3 boys for every 1 girl; they lead to different developments among children of the same age; individuals have difficulties maintaining eye contact; they cause delayed, non-existent or abnormal language development; they cause individuals to have repetitive and limited play; there is abnormal posture, walk or movement; and, 10 out of every 10,000 people have a PDD, according to a Fombonne study conducted in 2003.

Autistic disorder is one of the most common types of PDD, which refers to pervasive developmental disorder. I remind members that PDD affects four or five boys for every one girl, and is defined as a neurological disorder characterized by a delay in the overall development of an individual's basic functions.

Mutism is present in nearly half of all cases of autism. Non-verbal autistics have major problems with comprehension, mimicry and gestures. Impaired imagination can be manifested by a lack of symbolic games and stories invented with toys, or by difficulties imitating the actions of others. A number of autistic people show weaknesses in terms of motor coordination. Many also have difficulties with fine and gross motor skills. Autism can be found in individuals with varying levels of intelligence. However, the majority of people with autism seem to have lower than average intellectual performance, and present adaptive behaviour deficits, so in this respect, they are similar to people who have moderate or severe intellectual disabilities. Because of their particular characteristics, many people with autism also have behavioural problems.

A diagnosis of autism implies that the deficits have appeared before the age of three, that they have become a part of the individual's functioning, and that they are nearly constantly present.

The Autism Society Canada website also describes the general characteristics, and I would like to read them now.

Children and adults with autism spectrum disorders, or ASDs, have challenges with the following: social interactions; verbal and non-verbal communication; the ability to learn (in the usual settings); repetitive behaviours; unusual or severely limited activities and interests.

They usually find it hard to communicate with others in a typical way and have difficulty understanding social conventions. As a result, individuals with autism may respond in unusual ways to everyday situations and changing environments.

Autism varies tremendously in severity. Individuals with severe autism conditions may have ... symptoms of extremely repetitive and unusual behaviours. This can include ... self-injury ... and aggression.... Without appropriate intensive intervention, these symptoms may be very persistent and difficult to change. Living or working with a person with severe autism can be very challenging, requiring tremendous patience and understanding of the condition. In its mildest form, however, autism is more like a personality difference caused by difficulties in understanding social conventions.

There are also a number of related disorders.

Many individuals with autism have other health problems, for example: neurological disorders including epilepsy; gastro-intestinal problems, sometimes severe; compromised immune systems; fine and gross motor deficits; and anxiety and depression.

That information can all be found on the Autism Society Canada website.

I also wanted to talk about the impact it has on the family, but since I am out of time, I will have to leave it at that.

[Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, November 17th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

The example he gave is entirely to the point. One could mention many others, for example the government’s decision to reduce the funding needed by the Parliamentary Budget Officer to do his work. There is also the government’s refusal to say whether it will act on the Supreme Court’s directive regarding the repatriation of Omar Khadr, that is, whether or not it will respect the court’s decision. One might also think of what happened in the last Parliament. For example, there was a vote on the implementation of the Kyoto protocol and the majority of members of this House voted in favour, but the government had decided, on the pretext that it was the government, not to heed the majority voice of this House.

These are all examples that tend to prove that the government is in agreement with democratic institutions when it is in its interest to be in agreement, and does as it pleases when it is not in its interest.

[Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, November 17th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from Brome—Missisquoi for his question.

What he is in fact advancing is the following question. Is the government vulnerable to lobby groups that might urge it to cut corners, to rush the work and speed up the process, even if it means an imperfect agreement, an agreement that could have adverse effects in future?

This is a very important question, because what is expected of a responsible government, a government that does its job thoroughly, is that it pay no heed to all of these lobbies demanding that the process be accelerated, and that it take into consideration all interests and the informative perspective of a parliamentary committee, such as the Standing Committee on International Trade. That committee too may, in the exercise of its duties, invite experts from all over who have different and diverging points of view. What moves the debate ahead is having opinions that are sometimes contradictory. However, my colleague makes a good point. The government should not rush into anything to benefit special interests.

[Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, November 17th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I rise here this afternoon to resume debate on the motion put forward by my colleague, the hon. member for Sherbrooke, to amend Bill C-23, Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act.

I would like to begin by thanking the hon. member for Sherbrooke and congratulating him on his fine work. Throughout this debate he has been able to point to those parts of the agreement where important questions remain regarding its fairness, of course, but also regarding the real motivation behind the implementation of this proposed new free trade agreement between Canada and Colombia.

However, as I was saying, this debate is not about the bill itself, but rather the amendment put forward by my hon. colleague from Sherbrooke. Regarding this amendment, I wonder why the government would disagree with it, since the amendment does not change the substance of the bill, but the nature of the debate proceedings.

At this point in my speech, I would like to read the amendment. Then, I will explain whey the government could very well support it. The amendment says:

That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word “That” and substituting the following:

“the House decline to give second reading to Bill C-23, An Act to implement the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the Republic of Colombia, the Agreement on the Environment between Canada and the Republic of Colombia and the Agreement on Labour Cooperation between Canada and the Republic of Colombia, because the government concluded this agreement while the Standing Committee on International Trade was considering the matter, thereby demonstrating its disrespect for democratic institutions.”

Members will recall that, in the summer of 2008, the Prime Minister declared that an election was necessary because Parliament had become dysfunctional, committees were no longer able to conduct their business properly and that there was a lack of respect for the institutions of Parliament.

I am wondering, given that the Prime Minister himself seems so interested in the democratic nature of standing committees, why his government decided to introduce a bill to have this House study the matter while a parliamentary committee was examining it.

We know very well how our parliamentary committees work and how the agendas for these committees are established. Usually, the agenda is set by the members of the steering committee, which includes members of the opposition as well as government members.

How is it that government members decided to put a future Canada-Colombia free trade agreement on the agenda of the standing committee knowing very well that, in the back of its mind, the government intended to ignore the committee's work and to introduce in the House a bill to examine this very issue?

When these members informed the other committee members that they would support the study of this issue, did they realize the importance of the committee's work and the fact that this committee's findings could enlighten the government on a future bill?

It seems that would be obvious and that there is a process set up. When this issue was before the committee, the government members could very well have explained to government officials how the committee would be examining this issue. Now, it appears as though they were talking out of both sides of their mouths, since the committee had decided to examine this issue and to make some recommendations to the government.

As I said earlier, if the Prime Minister really had respect for the way committees work, he himself would have allowed the committee to do its work and reach its own conclusions so as to give the government a new perspective before it drafted its bill.

For these reasons, I think my colleague from Sherbrooke was absolutely right to introduce this amendment, which states that we should set aside this bill, and that we should decline to give second reading, so that the committee can continue its work. In fact, the committee is working as we speak.

I want to thank my colleague from Sherbrooke for inviting me to join him during some of the committee sessions so that I could hear for myself what some of the representatives and witnesses had to say. By the way, those witnesses had been invited by the government, when my colleague invited me to join him. The witness I am referring to seemed, in the case of the free trade agreement between Canada and the United States, to assure us that that free trade agreement would also be beneficial to Colombia.

It should come as no surprise that we have some reservations about this issue since we do not have many figures on trade between Canada and Colombia. We can all agree that current trade between Canada and Colombia is quite limited. In our opinion, the government is thinking about establishing a new trade regime between Canada and Colombia not because it has trade in mind, but because of certain interests, which could hinder efforts by the Colombian government and Colombian civil society to adopt better practices with respect to the environment and the rights of workers.

In closing, I would like to remind hon. members that the other point this witness wanted to make addressed the competitiveness we should maintain with respect to the United States. However, when it comes to international trade, Quebec and Canada have a very different attitude from the United States. Competitiveness must not be the only consideration in establishing a free trade agreement between Canada and another country.

[The Environment, November 16th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, global warming is a global concern. It should therefore come as no surprise that many alternative energy research projects are under way in Quebec to find solutions that will help us reduce our greenhouse gas emissions.

I would like to highlight the work of Karim Zaghib, a lead researcher at the Institut de recherche d'Hydro-Québec in Varennes, and his team, who have developed a prototype rapid-recharge battery. Preliminary results are promising: apparently their two kilowatt hour lithium-ion battery can be drained and recharged 20,000 times in six minutes. This technological breakthrough nurtures hope for performance gains in electric cars and brings these vehicles one step closer to commercial viability. We will all be able to shrink our ecological footprint sustainably and help slow climate change.

I congratulate, Mr. Zaghib. The Bloc Québécois is proud of Quebec's engineering prowess.

[Business of Supply, November 4th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the member seemed to be saying that I think it is terrible that the federal government is getting along with the provincial governments in the fight against H1N1. That is total false. What I am saying is that every government must ensure first and foremost that it does its job, in keeping with the Constitution and the jurisdictions of the different levels of government.

[Business of Supply, November 4th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, in fact, the motion answers the member's question in part. The first part of the motion, part (a), calls on the federal government to make an additional $400 million available to Quebec and the provinces to help them cope with the crisis in their jurisdictions.

In addition, part (d), which is the proposed amendment, calls on the government to implement the recommendations in the Auditor General's report, which says that the government's emergency plan is lacking. As I mentioned in my speech, it is important to have a clear, detailed plan, because it is important that every crucial step in addressing a pandemic or emergency be clearly defined in advance and shared with everyone involved, which means that the government must be transparent.

When I asked the minister to tell us the schedule for producing, administering and distributing the vaccine for Quebec and the provinces, she was unable to respond. Is it because she does not have the information or because she does not want to share it with all the members?

The last Conservative member who spoke seemed to be saying that we should be ensuring that scientific information about the vaccination and the fight against H1N1 is relayed to our constituents.

[Business of Supply, November 4th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Malpeque was right when he said that the government set aside $400 million in its budget to help Quebec and the provinces deal with pandemics. As he himself said, we are going to see record numbers of people infected by the virus in the coming weeks. The government needs to provide a considerable amount of money to Quebec and the provinces, and fast. We must increase our efforts and the number of personnel devoted to this important task of vaccinating the public. We must ensure that all other health care operations in all the provinces continue operating smoothly, and ensure that all levels of government in Quebec and the provinces have the financial resources they need to carry out this very important task, that is, protecting the people they are responsible for.

It is also important to remember—and the hon. member mentioned this in his speech—that, between June 11 when the WHO declared this a pandemic and August when the government ordered the vaccine, concrete action could have been taken.

[Business of Supply, November 4th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, this afternoon I rise to speak to the official opposition motion, which states:

That, in the opinion of the House, provincial and local health authorities and health care workers should receive the maximum possible support from the federal government in handling the H1N1 flu pandemic and related vaccination efforts, and the Government of Canada should therefore immediately: (a) allocate the full $400 million set aside for pandemic response in the 2006 budget to support additional medical staff for vaccinations and patient care; (b) increase support for emergency planning to help local health authorities cope with long line-ups and shortages of both vaccines and health care workers; and (c) divert the money now being spent on needless, partisan advertising of government budgetary measures to a new public awareness campaign to keep Canadians informed with essential up-to-date information throughout the pandemic.

The Bloc Québécois supports the motion because the federal government must now correct the situation and provide the support that Quebec and the provinces are entitled to expect. They could in turn facilitate the work of local health authorities.

The Bloc Québécois supports the motion to dispel confusion about the second wave of H1N1 pandemic influenza. However, we feel that the motion should be amended to ensure that each level of government continues to respect its jurisdictional boundaries while working to correct the situation.

The purpose of this motion is to allocate additional funding to fight H1N1 pandemic influenza. Following the SARS epidemic in the spring of 2003, which hit Canada hard, the Conservative government allocated $1 billion over five years in its 2006 budget “to further improve Canada’s pandemic preparedness”. That is what was in the budget.

About $600 million was given to various organizations and departments to help them prepare, and another $400 million was set aside for a future crisis. One of the official opposition's arguments that led to this motion was that because such a crisis did not occur during the past three years, the Conservatives used $80 million per year for other things.

I would really like to know for what other things the government thought it could and should use money that was set aside for something as serious as a pandemic. I would like the government to explain, here in the House, what happened to those millions of dollars, which were supposed to be set aside to help Quebec and the provinces should a pandemic occur.

Now it seems that there is $160 million left to deal with this eventuality. Yet the federal government should be able to draw on the entire $400 million initially set aside for pandemic response.

That money should be paid out to ease the burden for Quebec and the provinces, which have to cover the cost of vaccinating people and caring for the sick. That money would help hire more nurses to vaccinate people when the vaccine arrives or help cover the additional cost of caring for the higher number of people severely affected by H1N1 who require hospitalization.

It is important to keep in mind that a collective effort is what is needed. Everyone has to do their part. Everyone has to do their job. At this point, we can see that the government is not doing some of what it should be doing. It must also do its job transparently. Right now, it seems as though information is being given out in dribs and drabs. There is no clear strategy, and the government needs to make an effort to correct this situation.

As I said, the federal government must help the provinces cope with the added pressure on the provincial health care systems.

The motion also suggests that the federal government improve its emergency planning in order to support local health authorities, reduce lineups and address shortages of vaccines and health care workers. It is now officially recognized that the federal government was poorly prepared for the H1N1 outbreak. As recently as yesterday, November 3, the Auditor General, Sheila Fraser, criticized the government for not having a pandemic plan. In fact, the official opposition amended its motion to add the fact that the government must implement the Auditor General's recommendations on emergency management.

The Auditor General's report said this:

Public Safety Canada has not exercised the leadership necessary to coordinate emergency management activities, including critical infrastructure protection in Canada. For example, it has yet to develop the policies and programs that would help clarify its leadership and coordination role for an “all-hazards” approach to the emergency management activities of departments. Public Safety Canada has taken the first step by developing the interim Federal Emergency Response Plan, which it considers to be final although it has not been formally approved by the government. Nor does the Plan include updated or completed definitions of the roles, responsibilities, and capabilities needed for an integrated, coordinated approach to emergency response.

When I see the Auditor General of Canada being somewhat critical of the emergency plan, I recall the committee meetings where officials from various departments came and told us about their preparations. In light of that report, I wonder if, in their presentations to the committee, they did not fail to mention a few things. I think it would be interesting to hear them again on that. Are the departments talking to one another to ensure an overall coordination of government operations, among other things?

When I see the Auditor General suggest that the emergency plan is lacking, I recall the special meeting held in August, when the Standing Committee on Health heard the Minister of Health. She had been making piecemeal announcements week after week. I asked her this: “Madam Minister, do you not think that, instead of making piecemeal announcements, you should be putting forward a comprehensive overall plan of the actions to be taken to respond efficiently and effectively to a potential second wave of the H1N1 flu?” To this day, the government's policy seems to be this kind of piecemeal approach.

While the motion calls on the federal government to support local health authorities, we are of the opinion that the federal government should step up its prevention strategy to support Quebec and the provinces instead, so that they can in turn make things easier for local health authorities, given that health is a provincial jurisdiction.

The third part of the motion calls on the government to divert the money being spent on strictly partisan advertising to measures to promote public awareness and provide the public with all essential information concerning the H1N1 flu.

I am pleased to hear the Liberal Party say that partisan advertising should be ruled out. I cannot believe that it only now figured that out. Advertising should be for public information purposes only and really be used for that purpose. I hope that putting forward a motion they will be voting for today will make them realize that the various partisan ads they were fond of when in government were no more acceptable than the current government's ads.

It is disappointing when public funds are used for purely partisan purposes to increase a government's or a prime minister's popularity.

I spoke about relevant, accurate and targeted information. There is one example of a time when more information should have been given to the public; when other countries were approving the vaccine but not Canada. The public was confused. Members will recall that the United States approved their vaccine on September 13. Australia approved it on September 18, and France on September 23. Canada had to issue an interim order on October 13 to allow the vaccine to be distributed to the provinces. Furthermore, this interim order was based on European tests conducted on a vaccine similar to the one that would be distributed in Quebec and Canada.

So, after the government had put so much emphasis on waiting for the results of the Canadian tests, we have every reason to wonder why Health Canada decided to approve the vaccine at that point, since an official appearing before the Standing Committee on Health even admitted that aggregate data from around the world were used in making this decision.

Furthermore, the Minister of Health and the head of the Public Health Agency of Canada repeatedly urged the public to get vaccinated. This message was splashed all over the media—on radio, on TV and on the Internet. Now the massive vaccination campaign has been launched, and many Quebeckers and Canadians have heeded that message and are waiting outside vaccination centres.

Centres are having to turn people away by the hundreds, because they do not have enough doses of the vaccine. While the public has responded to the Canadian government's call, the government is being inconsistent, and is giving out conflicting information. At the end of August, the government said that we did not need a list of priority individuals, because Canada had ordered enough doses for everyone. Then, on September 16, the Public Health Agency of Canada announced that high risk individuals would be vaccinated first. This shows that they were managing things as they went along, instead of preparing in advance, which is what we expect from those in charge of Canada's public health.

What is more, it would seem that members of the Conservative government are not sharing their information. While the Minister of Health and the Chief Public Health Officer of Canada were touring the country to encourage people to get vaccinated, the Prime Minister seemed reluctant to follow the advice of a member of his cabinet. On October 15, the Prime Minister said he would get vaccinated if it were generally recommended.

The government only added to the confusion of its message, while its members sent out inconsistent messages, which left some doubt about the effectiveness of the vaccination campaign. After this blunder, it can consider itself lucky that the public responded positively to Health Canada's request and decided to get vaccinated.

We have to make sure the freed-up money goes to Quebec and the provinces, which are responsible for vaccination and health care delivery. The role of the federal government is limited to emergency planning, prevention and the distribution of safe vaccine, areas in which it has clearly failed.

On October 29, the Chief Public Health Officer of Canada announced that the production of adjuvanted vaccine would be reduced, delaying by a few weeks the production and delivery of regular vaccine to the provinces.

During the emergency debate I asked the minister a very simple question: when will things return to normal? When will the number of doses we had been receiving week after week, namely 400,000 doses in Quebec, be distributed again to the provinces? The minister was unable to answer that very simple question. It is a bit distressing to see that the minister was unable to say when this shortage would end. A number of vaccination centres have closed because of this shortage. This really does not make any sense. People are told it is time to get vaccinated and the clinics that were set up have to close because there is no vaccine, which is the federal government's responsibility.

While the line-ups for the H1N1 vaccine are getting longer and the vaccination centres are overflowing, it is unacceptable that the distribution of vaccine has decreased because of this governmental decision, which smacks of improvisation. Quebec, which was receiving 400,000 doses a week, will now have to settle for 101,000 doses this week.

Earlier this week or even late last week, Dr. Butler-Jones indicated that he was only advised of the situation last Thursday. He said he had no way of knowing how popular the H1N1 vaccine would be. The reality is that the federal government is having a hard time keeping up with the demand for the vaccine, while the high risk groups remain vulnerable. It could have made arrangements much earlier, knowing that it would eventually be supplied with 50.4 million doses of the vaccine.

It is asking people to be patient, but during that time a higher percentage of the population runs the risk of being infected. Over the past 10 days, 167 hospital admissions were reported across Quebec. Five people have died in Ontario, including three healthy youngsters. These unfortunate situations soon raised concerns among parents looking to protect the health of their children, but many are unable to act on their concern because of the shortage of vaccines.

At the moment, the shortage of vaccines has been caused by the shift in production from adjuvanted to non-adjuvanted vaccine. The latter was ordered in September, after the WHO indicated it did not have sufficient data concerning the effects of the adjuvanted vaccine on certain groups considered at risk by the Public Health Agency of Canada, including pregnant women. Despite the fact that the WHO had made this fact known in June, when the pandemic started, the government delayed its order for the non-adjuvanted vaccine. In her October 26 press conference, the minister announced that she would be buying doses of the non-adjuvanted vaccine from Australia.

Adding to the confusion in the message sent to the public, the shift in production and the minister's announcement concerning the procurement of 200,000 doses of non-adjuvanted vaccine from an Australian company, whose product was also approved by interim order, happened just after the WHO approved the adjuvanted vaccine for pregnant women, the original reason for ordering the non-adjuvanted vaccine.

The delay in ordering the vaccine and the approval given through an interim order have done nothing to reassure Quebeckers and Canadians regarding the government's management in its own jurisdictions. As soon as the World Health Organization alerted governments around the world to the risk of a pandemic, the Bloc Québécois doubted the federal government's ability to properly plan for a general outbreak of H1N1.

That is why the Bloc Québécois supports the motion that seeks to clear up the prevailing confusion regarding the second wave of the H1N1 flu pandemic. However, a few small changes still need to be made in order to reassure us that, while fixing the situation, each level of government will continue to respect its areas of jurisdiction.

[Health, November 3rd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, while the government pretends to have a handle on the H1N1 crisis, the Auditor General is criticizing the government for not having an emergency response plan for things like pandemics. Since 2004, the federal government has failed to produce an emergency response plan that allows the departments to communicate with one another.

Will the Conservatives admit that, in the case of the current crisis, they have been caught with their pants down?