Marcel Proulx

[November 19th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, there is a shortage of vaccine and there have been delays delivering it because the Conservatives put the health of their party before the health of Canadians.

The Conservative government is incompetent. It has broken its promise to vaccinate all Canadians against H1N1 by Christmas: 7 million people are still waiting. Instead of recognizing its own responsibility, it is blaming the large number of Canadians who want the vaccine for the fact that some vaccinations will not occur until January if demand remains steady.

We want a government that will protect the health of all Canadians, which only a good government can do, by making sure that our health system has the resources it needs and is prepared.

The second wave of the virus is taking a lethal toll in Canada. Perfectly healthy Canadians have died of the flu.

When will the government take responsibility and do what is right?

[November 19th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, Canadians are faced with a serious H1N1 influenza pandemic.

As early as last June, the World Health Organization announced that the pandemic had reached phase 6. The Conservative government knew this and had the duty and the responsibility to prepare for the first cases of influenza. It also had the duty and the responsibility to develop a fast, effective prevention strategy.

But this government failed in its duty and its responsibilities. On September 17, seeing the first signs of total disorganization, I asked this government whether it did not understand that it was responsible for protecting the health of all Canadians. It not only failed to adequately protect aboriginal communities, but it also failed to protect the other segments of Canada's population.

Serious mistakes were made in preparing for the pandemic. First, the government ordered the H1N1 flu vaccine after 35 other countries. Second, it stopped vaccine production because of poor planning. Third, it gave priority to producing the seasonal flu vaccine before the H1N1 vaccine. Fourth, it did not inform the public of the importance of getting vaccinated and then did not have the vaccine ready when the public wanted to get vaccinated. Fifth, it did not translate the information on H1N1 influenza into languages other than French and English. Sixth, the government started vaccination weeks—I repeat, weeks—after other countries. Lastly, it did not have a general emergency response plan in the event of a crisis such as H1N1 influenza or any “surge capacity” in the case of a serious pandemic.

If we review the chronology of H1N1, we can see that the Conservative government ordered the vaccine on August 6, three months after the United States placed its first order.

On September 4, the government finally ordered unadjuvanted vaccine for pregnant women, two months after the WHO recommendation.

Then, on October 8, the Prime Minister stated that the immediate priority was the vaccination against the seasonal flu.

On November 4, the Auditor General criticized the Conservative government's response plan for emergencies such as H1N1 influenza.

On November 9, Ontario's former chief medical officer of health said, “I believe that if they had made the bold and courageous decision to follow the evidence, and abandon the seasonal flu vaccine, that we could have had our H1N1 vaccine about six weeks earlier”.

During a press conference on November 17, the Chief Public Health Officer, Dr. David Butler-Jones, confirmed that 198 Canadians have died of the H1N1 virus, including 37 last week. He also told the Globe and Mail that Canada “will continue to see, unfortunately, more people in ICUs and hospitals, and, unfortunately, more deaths as well.”

It looks as though many Canadians may not receive their vaccines until February.

Will the Minister of Health and the Conservative government admit that they made mistakes, and will they implement the measures passed by the House to put an end to this sorry record?

[Government Appointments, November 19th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, not only are the Conservatives making industrial quantities of partisan appointments, but these appointments are revealing a cross-funding scheme between the Conservatives and the ADQ, a shady arrangement by Senator Housakos.

Yesterday, the Conservatives had no answers about the appointments of Nick Katalifos and Jean-Martin Masse, generous ADQ and Conservative Party donors.

Was it this same type of coincidence that earned Jean Depelteau and Luc Moreau their appointments?

[November 18th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, during the consultations, the City of Windsor indicated that complying with the regulations would cost $1 million per year and force it to hire at least 15 drivers.

During the sham consultations, the Canadian Urban Transit Association expressed concern that the Conservative government would impose these changes on provincial and territorial authorities. In fact, according to the Canada Gazette,

On behalf of its 120 members, the Association requested that the Government refrain from doing so because of their safety record, the need for more research, and the existence of other safety legislation.

Will the government consult and, more importantly, will it listen to the 120 association members before forcing this decision on everyone?

[November 18th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to denounce interference by the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities in a municipal conflict.

On June 5, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities did not answer the question I asked: “Why does the minister refuse to listen to the public transit experts?”

On December 10, 2008, the OC Transpo union, the Amalgamated Transit Union, here in Ottawa, called a strike. Control of scheduling hours was at issue. Both parties wanted to manage the scheduling, which was being done by drivers. To make a long story short, the parties went to arbitration.

At the risk of derailing the arbitration process, the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities did indirectly what he did not wish to do directly: he submitted an amendment to the Commercial Vehicle Driver Hours of Service Regulations. This amendment withdraws the exemption that applies to public transit systems of three cities—Gatineau, Windsor and Ottawa. All three systems carry passengers across borders and are under federal jurisdiction, whereas other public transit systems within the province fall under provincial jurisdiction.

The regulations govern the maximum driving and on-duty times and establish the minimum off-duty times of commercial truck and bus drivers. The regulatory impact analysis statement that the government was required to provide says a lot about its intentions.

On the one hand, the government admits that it does not possess any scheduling data for the Windsor and Ottawa transit services, but on the other hand, it is determined to regulate.

Here is what the Windsor transit service said when consulted:

—it does not believe that safety has been compromised under its existing structure for work-rest scheduling. Windsor believes that conforming to the...Regulations would require that it hire additional full-time staff to meet service needs and conform to the Regulations. Furthermore, the administrative requirements necessary for tracking hours of service would require additional staff as Windsor is currently operating at capacity.

And here is what the Ottawa transit authority had to say:

—while it does not plan to exceed the on-duty hours, doing so occasionally happens. The transit system advised that it needs flexibility in its scheduling to deal with special events.

Although the City of Ottawa did provide some information, it “could provide little information that directly links transit driver fatigue to collisions.”

It is obvious that the minister ordered quick action to satisfy his municipal pals.

Now, let us look at the regulations from the standpoint of benefits and costs. We can read that several comments were received which indicated that there would almost certainly be costs associated with adoption of these regulations, which is contrary to the millions of dollars in financial benefits cited by the City of Ottawa.

Even after receiving these comments, the minister still decided to go ahead with his regulations.

I call that determination. You consult but you keep your ears closed. You do not listen to the comments from the main cities involved. What good is consulting if a decision has already been made?

[Government Appointments, November 18th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, would the hidden inquiry first reveal a shady arrangement of cross-funding between the ADQ and the Conservatives, along with a system of partisan federal appointments in exchange for payments, as was the case with Nick Katalifos and Jean-Martin Masse, for example?

How can anyone fail to see the connection between this cross-funding arrangement and the Conservatives' system of partisan appointments?

[Government Appointments, November 18th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, Senator Housakos' financing methods are so suspicious that the leader of the ADQ has asked the police to investigate.

The Conservatives refuse to disclose what they learned about the senator from government checks prior to his appointment to the Senate.

Why is the government hiding the results of its inquiry?

[Political Party Financing, November 17th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, there seem to be a lot of coincidences. Serge Martel helped Mr. Housakos with ADQ fundraising, then Mr. Housakos had Serge Martel appointed to the board of The Jacques Cartier and Champlain Bridges Incorporated. Then, Mr. Martel participated in a fundraising event with representatives of Senator Housakos' employer, BPR. What a surprise. Soon after, BPR was awarded a contract to do work on the Champlain bridge.

If that is not considered returning the favour, then I do not know what is.

[Political Party Financing, November 17th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, in light of the increasing suspicions surrounding the fundraising activities of Senator Housakos, yesterday I asked the Conservatives to table in this House the report on the inquiry regarding Mr. Housakos' background before he was appointed to the other place.

If the Conservatives are confident that he has nothing to hide, I am sure that they will respond to my request today.

I will ask again. Can we see the inquiry report?

[Political Party Financing, November 16th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives are avoiding the question. Yet, it is a very simple question.

What was taken into consideration during the inquiry on Mr. Housakos' background, before his appointment to the other place? Was the expertise of the RCMP and of the Sûreté du Québec used during this inquiry on Mr. Housakos? If this inquiry did not reveal anything wrong, then the Conservatives will surely agree to table the report in this House.