Health Committee on Feb. 12th, 2021

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Go ahead, Mr. Lamoureux, on the same point of order.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I have found it interesting.... I've participated in many different types of committee meetings where I have seen individual members afforded the opportunity to be able to express themselves, and just because you don't mention the motion or you don't say something very specific in the motion, does not deem that you are not being relevant.

The member, on two occasions now, has interrupted a speaker while they have been definitely relevant. Ms. Sidhu is talking about the vaccine. The resolution, the motion we're talking about, is about the vaccine. The member is completely out in left field to try to give a false impression that the Ms. Sidhu is not relevant in her remarks. I say that only because Ms. Sidhu is entitled to be able to express herself in the best way she feels she can on behalf of her constituents.

We've now seen twice, through using a point of order as a way to disrupt a line of thinking that I'm very much interested in wanting to hear from her—

[Larry Maguire, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Chair, I have a point of order.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

I would suggest that members of the opposition be patient and maybe not so quick to draw a conclusion that a point of order is necessary, and listen to the member who is speaking and get the full perspective of what it is they're saying. I'm sure, Mr. Chair—

[Larry Maguire, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Chair, point of order.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

—that you will find that once the member is afforded that opportunity—

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

I'm sorry, Mr. Maguire, but we already have a point of order being discussed. Mr. Lamoureux has the floor. We'll deal with additional points of order on this matter as we go forward.

Mr. Lamoureux, please continue.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

The essence of what I'm saying, Mr. Chair, is that when you're in a standing committee or you're inside the chamber, it is not the individual member of Parliament's responsibility solely to interrupt a speech because, in their mind, they happen to think that the person is not necessarily being relevant.

That's why we have chairs. That's why we have the Speaker. I wouldn't want members of this committee to try to give a false impression that someone is not in keeping with the motion. I've listened to what Ms. Sidhu was saying, and I can tell you that every word she has said, in my opinion, is completely relevant. To try to give the impression that she is waiving away from the motion is just irresponsible, and it interrupts her train of thought.

I am hoping that by my providing an interjection at this point in time members of the opposition will be more respectful in listening before they start interrupting when there are no grounds for that interruption. As you can see, Mr. Chairperson, I get a little agitated because I find her comments to be completely relevant. If she were irrelevant, then maybe I wouldn't be quite as upset about the interruption.

I would suggest to you that she is completely in order and that the point of order is what's out of order.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Mr. Lamoureux.

We have another intervention on the same point of order.

Mr. Maguire.

[Larry Maguire, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Thank you for that.

The point of order here, which Mr. Barlow raised, is quite relevant. We've been here for three hours now and we haven't heard anything about contracts, and that's what his motion is about, so maybe the last speaker should read the motion and get on the topic. I know that vaccines are relevant to the whole situation we're talking about, but right now, we're talking about the government hiding things in the contracts and not making them public. I think that's the relevant issue here, which Mr. Barlow was trying to note, and I agree with him on that.

Relevancy, Mr. Chair, will be in your view as chair of the meeting, and not in the view of the government's deputy House leader at those times. While I respect his right to have an intervention here as well, I think it would be beneficial for all of us if we were talking about the substance of the motion that was made.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Mr. Maguire.

Those are excellent points, everyone. I certainly remind all members to try to keep their remarks relevant to the motion.

Ms. Sidhu, you were interrupted. Please carry on.

[Sonia Sidhu, Liberal, Brampton South, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I know my speech is relevant to COVID and the motion too. I've made the points I'm reading, so other members know they are very relevant points I'm making, and I urge everyone to listen.

The logistics services providers can deliver vaccines deep into the provinces and territories by designating vaccine delivery sites in remote and isolated communities, which is very important to all members' isolated communities, especially indigenous communities.

In areas that would otherwise be difficult to access, there is considerable flexibility and capacity in the distribution network to handle both surge and deliberate scale-ups.

Provincial and territorial governments are responsible for deciding how and where COVID-19 vaccines are being deployed within their jurisdictions. However, there is extensive collaboration to ensure that all Canadians who wish to be immunized can be, no matter where they live. That is very important, Mr. Chair.

The logistics of moving vaccines into large cities are very different from those needed to reach Canadians living in remote, rural and isolated communities. To address the varying needs, different options will be used, from mass immunization clinics in major urban settings to small mobile immunizations teams that can be flown into remote locations.

In early December, to prepare for the imminent arrival of Pfizer vaccines, we conducted a dry run to confirm our ordering, shipping and receiving processes. A few weeks later, we repeated the same process for the Moderna vaccine. These dry runs were followed up by the validation of the distribution processes prior to an initial live shipment.

Mr. Chair, you heard me question General Dany Fortin on that last time, because it is important to my constituents. More than 100 participants from federal, provincial and territorial governments, indigenous and industry partners and key stakeholders participated in the validation efforts. Everyone involved in the distribution process had an opportunity to visualize their role, to confirm responsibilities and critical hand-offs, and to build confidence in the overall conduct and execution of the complex multiplex plan. These collective efforts assured us that our distribution networks were in place for the arrival of the much-anticipated COVID-19 vaccines.

Our understanding of these new vaccines continues to evolve and manufacturers continue to update their product monographs and instructions. We are prepared and able to adapt to these changes and can modify how and where we distribute and administer vaccines to Canadians. Updated manufacturer guidelines and procedures that allow vaccines to be transported in a thawed state also allows shipments in smaller quantities. This is a key consideration for some remote communities.

As we roll into spring and summer, we anticipate a steep increase in vaccine availability. Distribution will also become easier when vaccines are approved that can be transported outside of ultra-low temperatures and frozen cold chains.

We also have the capacity to adapt and rapidly deploy vaccines if an unexpected supply becomes available on short notice.

Allocation forecasts continue to fluctuate on a regular basis. This is to be expected as we work with the manufacturers to accelerate the availability of approved vaccines.

It is also expected that natural disruptions will occur during the vaccine production process. We will update our federal, provincial, territorial and indigenous partners and the public regularly on allocation forecasts as they evolve.

The provinces and territories have been building and executing their plans for distributing vaccines within their jurisdictions. They have been ensuring that the necessary equipment, training and safety monitoring systems are in place to support a rollout. In parallel efforts, they have been confirming the practical readiness of designated immunization clinics, which are preparing for the largest scale ramp-up. That is still to come.

The federal government is supporting these efforts and working tirelessly to ensure that we can deliver through any eventuality as COVID-19 vaccines become more available to Canadians. We'll continue to work collaboratively, to share lessons and best practices, and to test and adjust as we move forward.

The safe and efficient rollout of Canada's COVID-19 immunization campaign is our primary focus, and rest assured that security is a key consideration in the planning and execution of the vaccine rollout. We continue to work with our partners in federal departments, with law enforcement at all levels and with designated logistics service providers to ensure the safe delivery of Canada's COVID-19 vaccine supply.

Our collective efforts over the past weeks and months, the early rehearsals of our distribution and logistics systems and the launch of Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna vaccines have all served to set the condition for a rapid scale-up as vaccines become more rapidly available in the months ahead. With more agility and flexibility, we are able to transport vaccines to more sites and in smaller amounts. This, complemented by our inherent flexibility to deliver to an increased number of vaccine delivery sites and our continually expanding capacity to support multiple cold chains, is good news for Canadians and for Canada's COVID-19 immunization strategy.

Mr. Chair, if this entire process sounds complex, it is. We have to do everything to prevent disruption. I am worried that the motion we are discussing today puts all of that at severe risk.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Ms. Sidhu.

We'll go now to Mr. Lamoureux.

Please go ahead.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairperson.

It's been a while since I've appeared at the health committee. I have a number of thoughts that I would like to share with committee members. I very much appreciated both Ms. Sidhu's and Mr. Long's comments.

It has been an interesting process, if I can start it off in that fashion. I did have a chance—I say this to my Conservative friends in particular—to read through the motion several times, and I must say that I am a little disappointed. I'm not surprised, but I am disappointed.

I'm disappointed in the sense that there is so much potential for what the Standing Committee on Health could actually be doing, and I genuinely believe that. In a minority situation, we recognize that our standing committees could play a very important role. In normal times—

[Julie Vignola, Bloc, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Chair, I have a point of order.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

We have Madame Vignola on a point of order.

[Julie Vignola, Bloc, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Now I really don't want to disrespect my esteemed colleague Mr. Lamoureux or interrupt his momentum, but I would like to point out that, although I have selected the French channel to hear the interpretation, I can hear my colleague's voice just as clearly as that of the interpreter. I may have a super-brain, but it can become complicated to follow two voices speaking at the same time.

Is it possible to check this, please?

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

I am sorry, Madam Vignola. We will look into this.

Mr. Clerk, could you see what you can do?

[The Clerk]

A technician will call the member.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Madam Vignola, we will continue. If the problem persists, please interrupt us again.

Mr. Lamoureux, if you wouldn't mind, please carry on. You might need to back up a little bit so, hopefully, Madam Vignola can hear what you are saying.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

I'll lower my mike, Mr. Chair, in the hopes that might help resolve the issue. I don't think the proximity from me to the screen really matters, but hopefully the mike will help.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

I'm sorry, Mr. Lamoureux.

I just want to mention that if the problem persists, Madam Vignola, we will pause briefly to see if we can get it resolved. Do keep us informed, please.

Sorry, Mr. Lamoureux.

You can carry on.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairperson. It's very much appreciated.

As I was trying to express, I am not surprised by the motion. I'm really not surprised at all. I am disappointed. It's something to be said in terms of where the priorities of the Conservative Party really are. It's encouraging that the health critic is actually online listening to this, because I do believe that she, along with the leader, is most likely giving the guidance here. I think it's very important that we recognize that the opposition party really has a responsibility too. We need to recognize that. I think they are letting Canadians down by the types of actions I have witnessed in both the House and committees.

I don't say that lightly, Mr. Chairperson. As I've said before inside the House, I've been in opposition for over 20 years. I love the happy face, I must say. The statement's inaccurate, but I do like the happy face. I have been a parliamentarian for about 30 years, with over 20 of those years in opposition. I understand what it is you need to be able to do in opposition to be able to maybe generate the type of attention you so desire in order to be able to communicate a message and so forth. Believe it or not, I've had the opportunity to participate in many different types of filibusters over the years. I wouldn't necessarily say that this is one I would classify as a filibuster.

I raise that because I'm trying to give some advice to my Conservative friends. That is, recognize the situation we are in and maybe start putting party politics second to the coronavirus and the pandemic that we are trying to overcome collectively. When this all came into being this time last year, when everything was starting to turn upside down, Canadians understood that we all needed to start working together. These contracts that we're talking about, these contracts that are within this particular motion, are part of the teamwork that we saw months ago. This isn't something that came from nowhere. This is something that's been in place for a long time now.

There were ample opportunities for opposition, if they were genuinely interested in the issue itself. If they were genuinely interested in the contracts, the Conservative critic for the Conservative Party would have been talking about this back in July, back in August. In fact, even then agreements were already in the making. If the Conservative Party really wanted to contribute to this whole question of who's going to be getting the contracts, what kinds of contracts they should be, and what about the Canadian content aspect, or if the Conservatives had any sort of legitimacy in terms of interest back then, I would suggest to you that they would have been able to contribute so much more to the debate that we're having today.

Mr. Chairperson, for the first time in 30 years, we sat during the summertime. The opposition had thousands of questions they could have asked. If we were to ask the analysts how many of those questions they asked about the vaccine, people might be surprised, from the health committee. I cannot recall one. The health critic is on the monitor right now. Did she ask one question in regard to the vaccine from May to the end of July, when all these negotiations were taking place and when her so-called concern about the vaccines that she espouses today...?

You know, hindsight is wonderful—20/20, absolutely. Wouldn't it be nice to be able to base all your decisions on hindsight? But then there is the real world, Mr. Chairperson.

I can tell you, because I was on the floor of the House and listening to opposition members ask questions, that I don't recall questions about the vaccines in June or July—none at all. I didn't hear opposition members saying, “Well, you know what, we want to contribute to that discussion and that dialogue with these companies, and at the end of the day when you're sitting down negotiating, we believe that no matter what those companies say, we want to make sure that these become public documents automatically, so you sign an agreement and it has to become public.”

I don't recall any discussions or dialogue of that nature, and I follow this issue fairly closely. I pay a lot of attention to what is taking place in the House. I can recall the Conservative health critic reacting to things after the fact, after she had been provided information, and it's very easy to be critical well after the decisions are made. As the opposition, yes, you can do that.

I can tell you, Mr. Chairperson, that this is where I will say that I am disappointed, but not surprised. What is the expectation of this motion? If this motion were to pass, what is the expectation? I believe that it puts Canadians in a potential difficult position. We don't know—I don't know and the health care critic and the Conservative Party do not know—all the details of those contracts and the confidentiality matters that are important. Could we in fact lose out by doing what it is that the official opposition wants and just say “here are the tabled documents”? Could we be opening ourselves up to all sorts of other problems as a direct result?

I don't know, Mr. Chairperson. What I do know is that when you enter into an agreement, there is a certain expectation. We entered into these agreements, and I am very proud of the way in which we achieved those agreements. We didn't say that it was going to be a political decision, that it was going to be the Prime Minister, the Minister of Health or the Minister of Procurement who was going to sit down and make that decision without ensuring that we had listened to what the experts were actually saying. There was a committee that was established—the vaccine committee. They were charged with the responsibility of ensuring that Canada was moving in a direction that would achieve optimum results in protecting Canadians from coast to coast to coast with a well-thought-out plan to deal with vaccinations.

Those health care experts, the people with science as a background and the bureaucrats who came together in order to ensure that Canadians' interests would be well served, did a phenomenal job—and, I would suggest to you, second to no other country in the world—in making sure that Canadians were going to be protected when it came to the issue of vaccines.

Of course, there are areas that I would have loved to see. To state the obvious, yes, let's produce vaccines here in Canada—wonderful. Sure, I'd love to produce vaccines here in Canada, but it doesn't happen by snapping your fingers. It's a lot more complicated than that. Even I understand that. The vaccination committee understood that too. That's why, if you take a look around the world, you're talking about hundreds of companies that all believe they have the answer and can produce the vaccine. Some of those companies are here in Canada. Who do we invest our tax dollars with to try to encourage and see that development?

Again, these are contracts in many ways, in different forms, entered into with Canadian companies—millions of dollars of federal tax dollars collected by Canadians to ensure that we move forward at the same time with some of that Canadian product, using the science that we have here in Canada, the homegrown stuff. Do you know what? We will have the capability, in good part because of the people of Canada who have the background to make it happen. The government, through the vaccination committee, was very successful at identifying the handful that they believed in...and asked the Government of Canada to get behind and support. We did just that.

Later this year, Mr. Chair, I think we could actually realize some of the benefits. We've had some tangible commitments. None have actually been approved by Health Canada yet, but there are tangible commitments to the development and progress on Canadian vaccinations being put together and manufactured or processed here in Canada. I think it is only a question of time. The committee understood that the best way for Canada to be able to protect its citizens and residents was that we needed to be able to enter into agreements, even if it meant we had to go outside our borders. We as a government, with the help of the vaccination committee and the many endless hours of consultations that took place, came up with a number of agreements.

There are those who now say, well, yes, the agreements are nice, but what about in Canada? We need to understand the history. Why doesn't Canada have the capability for manufacturing? This isn't something that happened overnight. Since the mid-eighties our capability to manufacture vaccines to the degree needed for this pandemic started to diminish. I received an interesting paper. It stated that in 2007 AstraZeneca closed its Canadian manufacturing operations and consolidated this activity into its Swedish-based manufacturing facilities. In 2010 Johnson & Johnson closed its research centre in Montreal. In 2011 Teva closed one of its Canadian manufacturing operations in Montreal. These actions were all taken when Stephen Harper was the Prime Minister of Canada. It was all part of something that's been taking place for decades. Canada's ability to produce vaccines just isn't there. We recognize that. This government has been investing millions in trying to build up that capacity into the future.

We hear about variants. We hear about how this is a once-in-a-lifetime pandemic, and even greater than that in terms of its occurrence, but we never know. The Prime Minister has said that we want to build back better where we can. One of the ways in which we can build back better is to look internally in terms of the vaccinations. Let's take a look. There will be opportunities for us to look at the contracts at some point in time in the future, I suspect.

Let's take a look and see how we can support that industry as a whole and allow it to grow. This government, in the last five years, has demonstrated that it is not hesitant to move and to take progressive measures in order to support and grow industries in our country. We have seen that, all of us, first-hand, by this Prime Minister and this government over the last number of years, so it should be no surprise to anyone that we now have from companies potential vaccines that will in fact be manufactured here in Canada. In fact, for my own premier, Brian Pallister, take a look at Newswatch. He has acquired a commitment for vaccines. Ottawa hasn't prevented provinces from being able to acquire. If they feel that they too want to be able to acquire vaccines, they can do that.

Premier Brian Pallister has actually acquired a commitment from a vaccine company that's hoping to be able to provide vaccines later this year. It might not be until October or November. It may be earlier—hopefully earlier. I'd like to see it more so as an insurance policy. The reason I say it's an insurance policy is that it's not until later in the year.

Because of the hard work of our vaccination committee, what we're able to see is those seven solid agreements. Contrary to the misleading information that the Conservative Party tries to give Canadians, we have seven agreements, which have put Canada, on a per capita basis, better off than any other country in the world—bar none.

If you take a look at those seven contracts, we have two of those vaccines, two of those agreements, that are actually in play today, because the vaccines were also approved by Health Canada. If the government's targets and plans continue in the positive way they have and we continue to realize the benefits of that hard work that was done months ago, you will find that we will get six million vaccines before the end of March, even though you wouldn't think that by the behaviour of the official opposition and the misinformation they want to pump out day in and day out, but that is the reality.

By the time we get to the end of June, we're talking 20 million doses, and then, over the summer period, every Canadian who wants to be vaccinated will have the opportunity to be vaccinated in a safe environment and for free because of the efforts of governments, whether provincial, federal, municipal, indigenous leaders or so many other stakeholders. Those who are administering our vaccines, those who are the backbone of our health care system—our nurses, doctors, pharmacists, all these people—are playing a critical role, but Ottawa and this Prime Minister did their jobs. Those agreements are there, they're real and they are delivering.

Conservatives stand in question period after question period and ask, “How many vaccines are we getting this week?” “Ha, ha, ha,” they say, “we've got the government not getting very many vaccines.” The bottom line is that we made a commitment to six million by the end of March, and let's see what the Conservatives say at the end of March once we've achieved that target, that goal, when we've hit the six million. They will find out very clearly that at the end of the day we fulfilled a commitment that was based on agreements, and there is still potential for more.

Mr. Powlowski talked about the agreements that were signed off on. We still have other agreements that are out there that will enable us to get more vaccines if and when they are approved by Health Canada. To me, that's what's important.

We all get emails. I get a lot of emails. I don't want to go through all of the emails I have with you, but in terms of time, if we're still going at this in a few hours, I might resort to going through some of those emails. I can say that my constituents are very concerned and they appreciate our being straightforward with them, which I am. There are some things that are beyond our control. When Pfizer said that it needed to retool so that it could expand its production, do you think we were going to say, “No, you can't do it”? Is that what the opposition is trying to suggest?

We had a commitment that by the end of the first quarter we would get x number of vaccine doses, and our concern was whether or not they would be able to maintain that commitment. We got their word that they would. In fact, most recently I have been told that they might even exceed it by some.

My concern, because this is what I am telling my constituents, is that Canada will have six million doses before the end of March. That is what the government has stated. Those are the agreements that were signed off on. Those are the ones that have been approved by Health Canada. Hopefully there will be more. There are ample opportunities to see our numbers go higher than what they are today. Until we get that Health Canada stamp of approval, I think we have to continue to go with the numbers we know we can guarantee.

When Brian Pallister, yesterday or maybe the day before came out and said that the Province of Manitoba had secured some vaccines, I said, “That's great”. There is nothing wrong with that. I think it's a good thing. Why not? There is always going to be a world demand for these vaccines, which will be ongoing past September or October. If all the Manitobans have had the opportunity to be vaccinated and we have a surplus, then they can explore other possible options in terms of what to do with the vaccines.

At the end of the day, that is also, in a way, like an insurance policy. I won't criticize the premier for that.

If you try to distort what it is that Ottawa is doing, or give a false impression, or try to give a false expectation that, for example, the vaccinations that are in the works here in Canada are going to be out in the first quarter, we know that's not going to happen. We want to make sure that we are not giving information that would build up a false expectation. That's where I believe our Minister of Health, Minister of Procurement and our Prime Minister have done a fantastic job, because they have stuck to the facts. They have respected the importance of listening to what health care professionals have to say, and have taken into consideration science when it comes to dealing with every aspect of the coronavirus, including the vaccinations.

There is a lot of information out there. When you think in terms of those contracts, you will find that there is information out there dealing with numbers, which is the most important aspect of the contracts. That is what we can base our planning on. If we know we're going to get x amount by such-and-such quarter, that allows us, that enables us, to make the decisions that are so very important.

We have web designers—I'm not sure what best to call them—who are absolutely incredible people. The Internet provides so much in terms of service. I hate to think of how we would have dealt with the coronavirus in every way had we not had the Internet. In that sense, it has been quite a blessing to all of us. I say that because Canadians who are interested in not necessarily following the debate but having a good understanding of all aspects of the coronavirus can go to the website. There is so much information on the website.

Here in this motion they talk about how they want to see the contracts. Go to the website. Yes, you're not going to get the details that would make the Conservative critic happy. After all, she is looking under every little rock for whatever she can try to find so that she can somehow make the government look bad. It doesn't really matter. That's been her personal agenda for months and months and months. I don't recall her back in May and June saying, let's sit down collaboratively and work with companies to see what we can come up with in contracts, and then, by the way, as I mentioned earlier, let's make sure those contracts are public. Of course that didn't happen.

Let's take a look at what you can expect if you look at the website. Every Canadian can do that. That includes members of the Conservative Party. The nice thing about committees nowadays is that it's kind of like having two screens. I can see the committee members on this side and then I have the coronavirus website on the left side of my screen.

The page I have here states, “Procuring vaccines for COVID-19”. It is an extensive document. It would take a long time to go through the whole thing. I will highlight certain aspects of it. Where it says, “Vaccine agreements with suppliers”, these are the agreements the motion is specifically asking about.

When you read the motion, it's asking for the law clerk to take some actions. I will read a portion of it:

That the Chair of the committee write to the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel inquiring on whether or not the contracts for Canada’s seven vaccine agreements with suppliers have been provided to his office as part of the motion adopted on October 26, 2020 by the House of Commons.

To be honest, I haven't taken a look at the details of the motion that was there from October 26, 2020, so I don't really know exactly what that motion is, but it's referencing these seven vaccine agreements. For the vaccine agreements and the suppliers, you can go to the website. You can get the list of those suppliers. That's why I say it's about the numbers.

To me what Canadians are concerned about, right now, today, is how soon they can get the vaccines. We understand the importance of it, but we're not going to forsake the health and well-being of Canadians. It has to be done in a safe way. Health Canada is recognized around the world for their expertise and the fine work they do. They are outstanding. I think if there was something every member of this committee could likely agree to, it would be on that particular point: We have some of the best, if not the best, health care experts worldwide.

We see that—and I don't say this lightly—because we see that in our approval process, in which two of those seven have actually been approved. If you go to the website, you'll see a list of all seven of them. You see “Moderna” and the actual number of doses at 44 million. We can anticipate that according to that agreement Canada will get 44 million doses. Now, I suspect that you might be able to find out in more detail—this very committee might even have talked about it—when those doses will be coming in terms of some approximate dates. For example, in the first quarter, we might get two million doses. Please don't quote me on the hard number, Mr. Chair, but we know that we're going to get x number of doses from Moderna in the first quarter.

We know that we're going to get 44 million, and that is something I think is fairly significant. Think about it. What's the population of Canada? It's maybe just over 37 million. I know it's in and around that 37 million. There are 44 million doses.

Pfizer gets a great deal of attention worldwide, and it's yet another company that we have an agreement with. Like Moderna, we actually have Health Canada approval of that vaccine. Because we have that vaccine approved, and also the Moderna, I can guarantee to my constituents that Canada will have six million doses of vaccine. I am perfectly comfortable in saying that by the end of March we will have six million doses.

If you take a look at how many there are in total, we could get up to 76 million doses. You don't have to believe me. All you have to do is look at the website. If the committee is really curious about it, check out the website and you will see that, yes, there is a commitment for up to 76 million doses. That's well over 110 million between Moderna and Pfizer.

I suspect that if you were to ask Canadians as a whole in terms of their confidence in those two vaccines, you would find that there is overwhelming support for both of those companies and confidence in those vaccines. Why? Because at the end of the day, there was proper research and it went through a process that speaks of confidence, public confidence. Health Canada was not pushed. It made sure that it did the things it needed to do in order to make sure that it was safe for Canadians.

In fact, my understanding is that we received doses back in December. Some countries didn't receive those vaccine doses until the new year. We started to receive some in December, but I want to try to avoid playing away from those stats. What about December, January, February, March...? The numbers fluctuate, as we all know, and that's why I will go back to those agreements and those contracts. We know that there is a solid commitment from Moderna and Pfizer for over 100 million doses, with Canada having a population base of 37 million people. Even if the balance is not covered or doesn't get approved, we know that Canadians' safety and well-being are being taken care of, because by the end of June, everyone who wants to be vaccinated will in fact be vaccinated.

I might have said June, but it's by the end of September, Mr. Chair, that every Canadian who wants to be vaccinated will in fact be vaccinated. That's good news that's in the not-too-distant future. I talked about just the two vaccines that are approved. There are many different stages prior to getting approved with Health Canada.

I made reference to Brian Pallister, the Premier of Manitoba. He has an agreement. I don't know if it's 100% ironclad yet. I believe it's a tentative agreement so don't quote me on it. This comes right from a CBC report that says that “Manitoba has made a deal to buy two million doses of a Canadian-made COVID-19 vaccine on the condition it gets approved for use in Canada and is delivered by the end of the year.”

This is a company that's Calgary-based but I think they're actually taking into consideration a component that would be done here in the province of Manitoba. I say, good for the premier. We have a great insurance policy. That's not going to happen until the end of the year in all likelihood. I would be pleasantly surprised if it happened in the first six months. I don't think it will, but if it does, that's fantastic. Let's let Health Canada continue to do its work.

Here's a company that has great potential. Hopefully we will realize and we will see those vaccines. I'm a proud Canadian and I'd like to see that made in Canada. It's not alone. As I said, we've invested literally millions into Canadian companies all over the place to ensure that we can bring up our capabilities to be able to produce the stuff into the future, which is so very important, Mr. Speaker—or, rather, Mr. Chair.

I apologize for calling you Mr. Speaker all the time. I'm used to it in the chamber, and I'm not as used to the committee room. I will get better as we proceed. You have my apologies, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Pardon me, Mr. Lamoureux. I take no offence to that, by the way.

I just want to advise the committee that we have a hard stop at 4:30 eastern time. After 4:30 we have no interpreters, no clerk, no analysts and no room.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

On a point of order, Mr. Chair, you have just stated that you intend to either suspend or attempt to adjourn this committee meeting based on resources. I realize that we are undertaking this meeting from a virtual perspective, but I believe that democracy has to proceed regardless. It is actually incumbent upon the House of Commons to ensure that we have resources for situations like this.

It is clear that the Liberals are filibustering this motion. I don't believe that they should be given a convenient window to stop the debate on this motion using the excuse of “resources”. The House of Commons—whoever it is, the Speaker's office, your office or whatever—should be attempting to find resources rather than shutting down the committee because of a “lack of resources”. My privilege as a parliamentarian is being violated by your decision to attempt to shut down the committee with regard to this.

I submit this as a formal point of privilege and I do not accept your attempt to shut down this committee due to “resources”.

Find them.