Debates of Nov. 27th, 2002

Worldwide All-News Television Network

[Some hon. members]

No.

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am disappointed to see that there is not unanimous consent. The members who said no are mostly members who live in a French minority. Through their vote, they willingly accept not to benefit from another all-news network in their own language. It must be because they already have enough, or because they do not want it. One would have to ask them in order to find out. But it is somewhat surprising and disappointing that they would not want to create, together, this all-news French network.

Some members are wondering what they opposed. I just told them that they said no to an all-news network in their language. I am sorry to tell them, but they should know what they are saying yes or no to. I am sorry for them.

We were told “Sure, but where will the money come from?” This issue, the money issue, will be discussed at international forums. However, if we were to follow the example of TV5, there would not even be a money issue, since we share the news and the technology of the countries that are part of this network.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

The hon. member for Charlesbourg—Jacques-Cartier has five minutes left to conclude the debate.

[Richard Marceau, Bloc, Charlesbourg—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Madam Speaker, first, I wish to thank my hon. colleagues from Repentigny and from Fundy—Royal for their contribution to this debate.

I want to say that I was bewildered, to put it mildly, by the remarks of the hon. member for Beauséjour—Petitcodiac. He declared the idea impractical from the word go, before giving it any thought. Unless he knows everything, which I doubt, I wonder on what basis he is making such a silly statement.

If we read the motion as presented, we can see that we are asking that consideration be given to the creation of an international French language televison network. He jumped the gun by declaring the idea impractical before even considering it. Allow me to question the seriousness of the approach and pronouncements of the hon. member for Beauséjour—Petitcodiac.

There is another point I absolutely want to bring to the attention of those listening. Both speakers who opposed considering having an international French language network are francophones in minority communities, namely the member for Madawaska—Restigouche and the member for Beauséjour—Petitcodiac. These are two individuals who should normally be very sensitive to the importance of promoting French language information tools. These two members of this House refused unanimous consent to make this motion votable. This speaks volumes about their personal and political involvement in championing francophones outside Quebec living in minority communities.

To conclude, we have learned today that the House will be changing its rules to allow each and every member of this House to bring in at least one votable bill per Parliament. I wish to announce, therefore, that I will very seriously consider reintroducing this motion or one very similar, so that it can be declared votable. This way, members will have to publicly take a stand for or against such a proposal, which, I repeat, is intended as a response to the suggestion by the President of the French Republic, Jacques Chirac, about creating an international French language all-news network.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

The time provided for the consideration of private members' business is now expired. As the motion has not been designated as a votable item, the order is dropped from the order paper.

Do I have consent to see the clock as being 6:30?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

[Greg Thompson, Progressive Conservative, New Brunswick Southwest, NB]

Madam Speaker, we arrived at this point a little earlier than I expected. I am glad I came over to the House a little early.

A week or so ago I asked the Minister of Health a question on bioterrorism. The point I was making was that Canada simply was not prepared for a bioterrorist attack. What I specifically spoke about and questioned the minister on that day was the fact that if terrorists had the ability to deliver the smallpox virus to Canada it would have a catastrophic effect on our country. I compared the preparedness of the United States and the United Kingdom to that of Canada. I pointed out that the United States was prepared to vaccinate 280 million people within a week if it became necessary. I also pointed out that the United Kingdom had taken steps to vaccinate its people in the event that something like that should happen. The fact of the matter is, it can happen and we must be prepared for it.

I also questioned the antidote. When people receive the vaccination that would protect them against smallpox, an antidote is required to counter the effect of that particular drug. Out of every 10,000 people who are vaccinated against smallpox there will be at least one death and possibly more. The antidote is something that we never even considered in Canada and the government does not have a supply of it, yet that antidote itself is manufactured in Canada.

The question would be, if the United Kingdom and the United States are prepared, why are we not prepared? That was the point I was driving at in my question to the minister that day in the House.

I want to quote from an article that appeared in the Edmonton Journal on November 14, about two weeks ago, in which the Defence Science Advisory Board said:

The country should expect attacks which deny “immediate and effective response” says the report, prepared by the Defence Science Advisory Board, whose members are drawn from industry and the academia.

The article goes on to say:

Even if it were possible to distribute cases nationwide in an instant, a major disaster which created 3,000 urgent or critical cases would break the entire system.

It went on again to say:

And health-care cuts have left provinces “with minimal capacity to respond to any emergencies beyond the scale of a bus crash.

What we are saying is that we have to be prepared, we should be prepared and it is important that the Government of Canada act on this real possibility. If other countries have done it we should do it. Why does the government not act? Why does the minister not act?

On top of that, the bioterrorist advisory group that the government set up about a year ago has not yet met. It has been over a year. The only thing it has had is a long distance telephone conference. This advisory group that the Government of Canada thought was so important to set up in response to any terrorist attack on the biochemical front has not met.

The question for the minister is: Why has it not met? Why will it not do something? Why will it not prepare Canada, as the United Kingdom has prepared itself, as has the--

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health.

[Jeannot Castonguay, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's question. I will try, in the next few minutes, to give him the exact status of where we are today, the position the government has taken as well as the position of the Minister of Health.

I would like to assure my colleague, and obviously all of my colleagues that are listening, as well as all Canadians, that our government is working with public health officials from the provinces and territories to ensure that in the unlikely event that smallpox were used as a terrorist weapon, we will be prepared to deal with the threat.

These preparations are twofold. The first element consists of a plan. The second element is having a sufficient quantity of smallpox vaccine in Canada. On both of these fronts, we have taken the necessary measures to protect Canadians. Allow me to explain.

There is the Canadian contingency plan for smallpox. We have obviously consulted with the Chief Medical Officers of Health from every province and territory.

This is a very important step because any plan must reflect the way we work together in a real emergency situation. For this reason, Health Canada officials have carefully examined the plan with all of the appropriate provincial and territorial stakeholders, the Chief Medical Officers of Health and their staff, as well as emergency services and emergency social services staff.

The contingency plan has been carefully studied. The final version will soon be released to the public. What does this plan call for?

We have taken the research and confinement approach recommended by the Council of Chief Medical Officers of Health and the World Health Organization. This strategy was applied successfully in the years prior to 1979, and led to the eradication of the disease.

Under this approach, the spread of smallpox is contained by identifying infected persons and any persons who may have contact with them. The vaccine is administered to these people in the four days following their exposure to the smallpox virus, and to those who work with smallpox carriers, health care workers and laboratory workers.

We have been very actively involved in procuring the vaccine. Our intention to get it from a Canadian supplier has been revealed today as part of the government tendering process. Public Works and Government Services Canada issued an advance contract award notice via MERX, the government electronic tendering service.

Our objective is to have a stock of smallpox vaccine available that would be sufficient to react to multiple smallpox outbreaks in Canada, should that event ever occur.

At the same time, we will have the capacity to produce more doses in Canada expeditiously. This would be required if ever we were required to expand the vaccination effort, even to the entire population if circumstances required.

As for the immunoglobulin, which is used to treat serious vaccine side-effects, there is a limited quantity of this in the world, because it is produced from the blood of recently vaccinated individuals, and most countries stopped doing systematic vaccination in 1972.

The United States has recently begin to rebuild its stocks of immunoglobulin, by vaccinating a small number of volunteers who then donate their blood to produce the immunoglobulin. Via discussions with the U.S. Center for Disease Control, Health Canada is taking steps to obtain a certain quantity of the immunoglobulin. I can assure hon. members that Canada has no intention of vaccinating anyone whatsoever against smallpox until this immunoglobulin is available.

This is, obviously, part of our campaign against smallpox, which includes what we call pre-exposure vaccination. Before any outbreak whatsoever occurred, a certain number of individuals would be immunized in order to be in a position to provide medical care to anyone who might be exposed subsequently.

Clearly, we do have a plan and will do everything in our power to implement that plan, if ever the need arises.

[Greg Thompson, Progressive Conservative, New Brunswick Southwest, NB]

Madam Speaker, thank you for reminding me that I had a one minute response to the minister's response to me. I appreciate that. I was captivated by his speech and I forgot that I had one minute, although now I am down to 50 seconds.

After listening to the parliamentary secretary's response, I do not think we are really ready for a bioterrorist attack. I do not think we can simply hide under our desks and pretend or hope that it does not happen, because the fact is that it could happen. That is why these other jurisdictions have prepared themselves for that eventuality--I should not say it in those terms--that possibility is probably a better way of saying it because we are hoping and praying of course that it does not happen, but we have to be ready if it does happen.

The antidote that other countries have subscribed to is manufactured--

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health.

[Jeannot Castonguay, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Mr. Speaker, obviously, other countries have taken a different approach. Their approach is to vaccinate the entire population, while we came to the conclusion, following consultations with experts in the field, that here in Canada, we will only vaccinate groups at risk, and confine these people.

We have procured the vaccine required for this need. If the entire population needed to be vaccinated, we could meet this objective using the dilution factor.

This is a choice that we made based on consultations with experts who suggested it. This is also, incidentally, the approach suggested to us by the World Health Organization. We are fully aware that other countries have preferred to take a different approach.

I thank my colleague for having raised this issue, to let all Canadians know where we are at on this issue.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 6:31 p.m.)