Debates of Nov. 2nd, 2009

[Luc Malo, Bloc, Verchères—Les Patriotes, QC]

Madam Speaker, my colleague is somewhat correct. The question is a good one. Is Christmas early enough, when we are currently in the second wave of the pandemic? That is what the debate this evening is about.

The government realized that the supplier might not be able to supply the hoped-for doses because it had only one production line. The government denies it, but on the other hand, it seemed like it wanted to blame the company because the company had overestimated its production. That really does not make sense when distribution has to be planned during the period when the pandemic is in full swing. We cannot play with words like this when ultimately it is the public’s health at stake.

Has the government failed in this regard?

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Madam Speaker, I would like to begin by wishing my hon. colleague a happy birthday as well. Since he is also one of my youngest colleagues in this House, I think this is a good opportunity for us to work together, given that there are so few members here to represent our generation.

Regarding the question, I would also like to hear his opinion as a member from Quebec. Quebec has really shown a great deal of initiative in the fight against the H1N1 pandemic. My province, Manitoba, has also taken some initiatives. I could give several examples of provincial governments that have really shown us what must be done.

In the meantime, however, we have a federal government that points at the provinces. This government has not shown any leadership. It still does not really understand what needs to be done, not only to support the provinces, but also to provide some direction, show some initiative and really support Canadians.

I would like to hear my hon. colleague's thoughts on this.

[Luc Malo, Bloc, Verchères—Les Patriotes, QC]

Madam Speaker, if I may, before I begin, I would like to once again thank my colleague from Churchill for her birthday wishes.

Yes, Quebec's health and social service centres had their action plans in place, but they could not vaccinate people without vaccine. There is no question that the federal government is responsible for providing vaccine to the provinces. It cannot hide from that. It cannot wash its hands of the whole affair and give all kinds of excuses for why the vaccines are not available. The government should have had a detailed timeline from the very beginning.

Once again just now, I asked the minister about this. I asked her if she could provide clearer answers about when previous levels—400,000 doses per week in Quebec—would be reached again. She could not even give me an answer. I asked her a straightforward question during this debate and she could not give me an answer. That inability to answer is what makes people wonder when they are going to get the vaccine. My question is absolutely pertinent.

[Jack Layton, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Winnipeg North.

We are facing a very serious situation. I very much appreciate that the Liberal member put forward the motion for this emergency debate. This is obviously an urgent matter for those people, those families waiting in line that we see on television.

I imagine that these people hope that, in this House, we will have a respectful discussion where we will share ideas, present the issues and encourage the government to take action. We could also highlight various facets of the problem so that we will come to a better understanding of what needs to be done.

As part of this serious debate, I wish to make some suggestions. I remember my conversation with the mayor of Kitimat, Mrs. Monahan. She had just learned that all the schools in Kitimat were to be closed.

I was speaking with the mayor of Kitimat on the phone who had just learned about the closing of a mill and the loss of 500 jobs, which is pretty much an economic disaster. She told me she had just heard 10 minutes before that schools were having to be closed in Kitimat because of high absenteeism. I was thinking of the families who are now having to look after their kids at home in the midst of that situation.

I am thinking of the nurses who work with the homeless people in our communities, people like Cathy Crowe in Toronto underlines how many homeless people are likely to be very severely affected by this virus as it spreads through the shelters.

I was thinking of the chief from northern Manitoba who met with me and the member for Churchill and only hours after that conversation received a phone call that one of the family members had passed away and had to return immediately home.

These are immensely personal situations that we are dealing with. I think at this particular time we all have to work together. One of things that we have to do together is to ensure that the vaccines that are available are distributed as quickly as possible.

I had the opportunity to chair the Toronto board of health for many years and so I have a little familiarity with what is involved. I am hearing from the people in the public health sector that one of the problems they are facing is that they really do not have the resources to deliver the vaccinations on the ground and they are having to reallocate from other parts of their budget and other parts of their activity.

I remember thinking about what happens when we have a weather disaster, a flood or an ice storm. We actually have a system in place where 90% of the funding is going to be provided by the federal government. In other words, if one is a local decision maker, one can say, “We don't have to worry about the money. It's going to be taken care of. Let's get this plan going and move as quickly as we can to try to prevent as many problems as possible”.

This would be my key proposition to advance. It is time for the federal government to step forward and say, “We're ready to backstop the financial requirements of the delivery of the vaccine so that people can get the help as quickly as possible”. I sincerely request the government to accept that suggestion in good faith.

I believe that if the government were to talk to some of the provincial officials, and I know they are having these conversations because so have I. And I can say they are worried about the costs and they are not able to do as much as they might be able to do if they knew the federal government would stand behind them.

If we can prevent tens of thousands of people from becoming sick, I know I will be able to sleep better at night knowing we did everything that we could.

Therefore, we propose that the government inform the provinces and territories that the funds will be available to deliver the vaccine to families, clinics and doctors. My second suggestion is that more advertising is needed. That is definitely true.

We have too many people who just do not have the information they need. They walk up to me on the street and ask me questions. I am not a medical expert, so I am not really in a position to answer some of the questions they are asking me. I am not going to try to lay them all out here in the time I have available. I think the members in the chamber know what I am talking about.

Therefore, I would hope that a very significant increase in the investment that we are making on informing people could be done as quickly as possible. That may mean adjusting some of the priorities. We have ad buys from the government out there. Perhaps we can make some switches and put some of this important public health material into the advertisements right away.

I am not trying to be critical because decisions are made about ad buys months ahead of time, but perhaps something could be done so that more of the questions could be answered, so that people will know what to do because they are at a high level of anxiety right now.

I would also suggest to the government that it is essential for MPs to be engaged with the government, as a Parliament, on a daily basis on this issue.

I think we have to put this particular crisis into the top priority in our work around here in the days and weeks to come. I would hope that we can find a way to do this that produces results for Canadians.

If we see what we normally see in the midst of this health crisis, as people are going to funerals, as young lives are being lost, people are going to become very disappointed in all of us. I would ask the government and I would ask all the parties to accept the propositions that we are bringing forward in good faith. I think it is a time for a level of engagement and commitment from Parliament, the likes of which we do not often require and we do not often see.

I undertake to ensure that the NDP will provide concrete ideas and suggestions. At times, we may have some constructive criticism. If we see that something is not working as it should, we will point it out in a non-partisan way.

Madam Speaker, thank you very much for giving me the opportunity to participate in this emergency debate.

I can only think about this really as a family member, as a grandfather. The best call I had today was that my daughter, who has a four-month-old baby, was able, finally, to get her vaccine this morning. That made me feel good for a whole lot of reasons and we have millions of Canadians out there who are looking to feel that same security.

Let us get on the job and make that happen. Let us ensure that it is not something that we have to pay $2,000 or $3,000 in order to get that protection for our families. Let us ensure everybody gets the protection they need.

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Toronto—Danforth for his comments. I want to address, if I could, the latter part of his comments with respect to the adequacy of the educational program that the government has frankly failed to engage in during the last number of months, knowing at least in June of this year that the pandemic was forthcoming .

Particularly, with respect to his comments about the people stopping him in the streets, without exception I am being stopped in the market, in the bank, and in the grocery store and asked the same questions.

I appreciate that the member's comments tonight are much more tempered than they have been during his comments in question period, but I am wondering if he could comment on the adequacy of the government's education program in informing the public about the preparedness that they ought to have undertaken by--

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

The hon. member for Toronto--Danforth.

[Jack Layton, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Madam Speaker, hindsight is a wonderful thing; however, I do think that there was some evidence last spring that there was something pretty serious coming at us, and I would like to have seen more information of a preventative and informative nature being available to the public.

I do not think it is too late for us to move on this now. The fact that we have agreed to an emergency debate sets the tone that we would like to see a real change in direction. Certainly, I called for that in my comments and I hope that the government would see fit to respond.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Madam Speaker, I listened to the hon. member's comments with great interest.

The first thing I wanted to do was commend the hon. member for putting the interests of Canadians first. He made a very thoughtful, rational and reasonable intervention here this evening, where he clearly demonstrated that what matters most is the people in our ridings. I think that is the way each and every one of us feel.

I would simply state that I believe that this type of effort and this type of intervention is what Canadians expect of this Parliament and what they are hoping that this Parliament is able to achieve when we face challenges like this one.

I guess I have nothing further to say to the member other than to commend him for his intervention this evening.

[Jack Layton, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the comments and thank him very much.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I too appreciate the tone and the reflective nature of the member for Toronto—Danforth's comments. There is always a temptation to rush to over-the-top comments that give us headlines, but on an issue like this, it really is incumbent upon all of us, especially in a minority government, to work together collectively.

Bear in mind the hon. member did say that where criticism is due, or where there are constructive criticisms to be made, that will happen, but to work together collectively, all of us, really is what Canadians expect from us.

My question is this, very briefly. The hon. member mentioned he was chair of the Toronto board of health for six years. In my background, I chaired the Hamilton public health services and social services. I wonder if he could give us a perspective on the pressures they face because the minister was suggesting that somehow they have let people down.

Could he let us know what pressures are facing the local health boards?

[Jack Layton, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

There are many pressures, Madam Speaker, but the key one that they face in this sort of situation is how they are going to finance the work that needs to be done and how they have to cut back on what should really be happening because the resources are just not there.

The purpose of one of my key propositions here tonight was for the federal government to step forward and bring that 90:10 kind of sharing that we bring in during a weather disaster when it comes to financing, so that those will not be obstacles in the next few weeks.

I hope the government--

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

Resuming debate. The hon. member for Winnipeg North.

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to follow my leader in this very important debate.

I want to begin by acknowledging the significance of this evening's discussion and thank the Speaker for recognizing the importance of having this debate.

This is our first opportunity to question the government about some of the unfortunate developments that happened this week that caused grief and anguish among Canadians everywhere.

We are not here tonight to throw stones or to cast blame. We are here tonight to get answers so that we do not repeat the same mistakes, so that we can fix the issues that have emerged, and Canadians will not have to worry and live with such fear and concern and anxiety day in and day out.

I remind members in the House that we are dealing with a most virulent, serious virus that can cause deep lung problems in people, leading to death. I remind everyone in the House that there have been 5,700 deaths in the world since the H1N1 virus first made its ugly appearance in our society.

I remind everyone in the House that we have just hit our 100th death in this country. This week alone we saw 11 deaths, young girls and boys from all parts of this country, whether we are talking about Timmins or Ottawa or Bloomingdale. Kids that were in good health and at the height of their activity were struck down. Manitoba also experienced something similar last spring when a 40-year-old man with no preconditions suddenly dropped dead from this virus.

We know how serious it is, and that is why we are raising questions tonight. We are prepared to give credit where credit is due, and we have done that over the many months we have been dealing with this issue.

I want to remind members that last April when the virus first emerged, we were quick to acknowledge the work of the minister in terms of briefing the opposition, in terms of having regular briefings, and in terms of keeping us informed. We will always acknowledge the government when it does something right.

We also, along with the government, celebrate the achievements of Dr. Frank Plummer with the National Microbiology Laboratory, who was the first scientist to decode the virus of Canadian and Mexican sources. We have much to give thanks for and we are quick to give praise where praise is due.

But this week something happened. The wheels fell off the bus. Something went terribly wrong. The commitments made by the government did not prove to be worth the paper they were written on.

I want to remind members how often we stood in our places and asked questions about how we were prepared as a nation for a national pandemic. Each and every time we received the same line: “We are on track. Don't worry, we have enough vaccine for everybody in this country. We don't need to prioritize people. We don't need to sequence people. We don't need to single out at risk people. We don't need to worry about setting up clinics. We don't need to do any of that because, in fact, we have the vaccine and we are going to get it out as promised”. The government did not do that. Something went wrong.

The government can blame GlaxoSmithKline or it can blame the provinces or whoever, but we need to hear the government say tonight that something did go wrong.

The government needs to say it is prepared to assess the situation and fix the problem, so that we can deal with people's anxieties and actually ensure that the vaccine will be forthcoming in the next week and the week after that, leading up to full coverage well before Christmas we would hope, because as everyone in the House has said, there is not much point in getting a vaccine out in December if the flu season is already over.

We want the government to act as quickly as possible with a secure supply of safe vaccine. We thought that was what it was doing on October 21 when it announced that, lo and behold, it was ahead of every nation around the world and would be bringing forward 50 million doses to cover the country and no one would need to worry.

The government promised three million doses a week. It turned out that was a bit of an exaggeration. In fact, it was two million in the first week, maybe two million the next week, and then suddenly almost nothing.

On Friday, when the provinces were already busy setting up mass immunization clinics, spending millions of dollars in terms of hiring staff, getting the facilities in place, getting the equipment, and doing everything necessary, the government picked up the phone and said the vaccine will not be forthcoming. Sorry, no can do.

I want to know, as does the rest of the House, when did the government know there was going to be such a short supply? Why did it not tell the provinces sooner? Why was it not more forthcoming about the actual situation?

Interestingly, on October 26, one week ago today, an official from GlaxoSmithKline said at committee said, “We are on track. We are on schedule in terms of producing the vaccine”. That was Monday. By Thursday, word started getting out that that was not the case. The provinces started preparing. Manitoba certainly started alerting people, much to the chagrin of the minister, whose office promptly scolded anyone for citing this as a problem. The provinces were not officially notified until Friday morning. How does one plan for something as serious and significant as a national pandemic, ensuring vaccinations of the at-risk groups and then the rest of the population, if the federal government cannot be forthcoming or even keep its word in terms of the vaccinations that are available?

If there was a problem, the government should have said so. It should have told us what the problem was. Maybe it was quality control. Maybe it stopped the production in order to do the non-adjuvanted vaccine. Maybe something else happened. We do not know. Maybe the government exaggerated what it was intending to do on October 21, when it told the whole world that it was ahead of the game and that it was going to solve the problems of this national pandemic in one fell swoop.

All we need from the government is for it to be honest, up front and transparent with what has happened. We know that we have to deal with this in real time. We know that we have never experienced it before. We also know that people are dying. Children are dying. Middle-aged men are dying. Pregnant women are scared out of their minds about what to do. They are getting all kinds of conflicting advice.

One can imagine with all of those fears going on, seeing this kind of inaction from the government and at the same time reading in the papers about private clinics getting access to the vaccine so that they can hand it out to their high-paid clients. People are buying their way to the front of the line.

We raised it in the House, but the government did not have the decency to address that. It did not have the decency to stand up and say that it is also offended by that and that it will see to it that the Canada Health Act is enforced every step of the way. It did not say that it would not allow our precious H1N1 vaccine to go out to the highest bidders.

This is about ensuring that the people who need it get it first and that it is distributed and dealt with on a public, not-for-profit basis. There is no room anywhere in our health care system for that kind of privatization. There is certainly no room in a time of crisis for a government to allow this to happen and then to say nothing about it. There is no room for it to not come clean and at least say that it should have set out guidelines, that there should be national standards and that it failed on that front.

Today, all we are asking is that the government look at the problems that happened and sort them out so that over the next few weeks, the provinces and the people of this country can be guaranteed the vaccine as they line up and wait for it. We ask that it follow the advice of my leader and start to look at cost sharing some of the expenses around this and not just 60% of the vaccine, where it ended up not keeping its end of the bargain.

We ask that it start to pay for some of the additional costs that every province has to bear and first nations communities have to undertake, anywhere extra costs come with the pandemic. We ask that it come to the table and be prepared to cooperate and show that we can solve this problem together.

We are not here to create fear or to scare people. We are here to say that there is concern and anxiety out there which the government has a responsibility to address. That is exactly what we expect from the government tonight during this emergency debate.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Madam Speaker, I listened intently to some of the comments the member opposite made. At one point she said that our government promised to solve this problem in one fell swoop.

I have been in the chamber many times during question period when our Minister of Health has been very clear that Canadians could expect the rollout of this vaccine in the first week of November. In fact, we were earlier than that. The other thing that I think Canadians need to be reminded of is that Canada has more vaccine available per capita than any other country in the world.

Granted, there are many more to be vaccinated, but does the member honestly feel that it would be possible to vaccinate 33 million Canadians in the first week of the rollout of this campaign?

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, that is a very good question, because when we asked the minister in the House way back in the middle of September when we came back from the summer recess what was the plan in terms of setting priorities for at-risk groups, the minister and the Public Health Agency officials said, “Do not worry. We do not have to have a priority list. We do not have to sequence, because we have 50 million doses ready to cover this country”. We knew it would take time to roll out, and that is why we asked for leadership from the government to identify those groups, just as President Obama did in the dead of summer, just as the Manitoba government and other provincial governments did early in September. They did not wait for the federal government to finally come forward on September 16 with its list of priorities, leaving the provinces to sort it out themselves and resulting in no national strategy.

When the problem hit and people were coming in droves to get vaccinated because of fear, worry and anxiety, the government could not produce what it had promised. We are not talking about 50 million doses. We are talking about three million doses a week, as it promised, and the government could not keep its word. That is where the problem lies. The government cannot set up demand and expectations and then fall down on its end of the bargain. The government has to be faithful and true in terms of its commitment and keep its word.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague raised many important questions.

Could the member comment on why the government ordered the vaccine so late in the year? It ordered the pandemic vaccine in August. That was after other countries had ordered it. Then the government gambled on the date of when the second wave might hit. It was preparing for November.

What if this had happened earlier, as in the past? What if it had hit in September and October? What would the government have done to protect the health of Canadians in that gap period?

The importance of having a pandemic plan is to update it as required. Why did the government choose to use only one company and only one production line?

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, those are excellent questions.

With respect to the tardiness of the government in placing its order, that is one of the questions of the hour. We know that Treasury Board's decision was not made until the end of July. An order was placed on August 6. That was weeks and weeks after the problem had been identified, and after the health committee had held emergency meetings in the summer, and of course the Conservatives suggested that we were just playing politics, to push them in terms of getting prepared, and that was the result. That is a question that has to be addressed.

Also, a big problem has emerged by the government not following its own advice to ensure there are at least two suppliers of a flu vaccine. That is the policy in place for every other flu vaccine. When it comes to H1N1 vaccine, the government decided that it could go to one company. An expert witness at the health committee showed just how much of a problem that is. Dr. Rob Van Exan from Sanofi Pasteur came to our committee and said that in a normal regular flu season, which predates GSK's involvement in this, there were always at least two companies that were given the contract. Producing a vaccine is difficult. There could be quality control problems, and there is a need for a backup supply.

For some reason the government decided to go with one supplier only. On top of that, the government gave the supplier an additional contract beyond whatever the company signed eight years ago to allow it to switch production in order to make the non-adjuvanted vaccine.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health]

Madam Speaker, I rise in the House tonight to address Canada's overall plan for preparedness with respect to the H1N1 virus.

Canadians remember all too well the 2003 outbreak of SARS, severe acute respiratory syndrome. It killed 44 Canadians, made hundreds more sick and paralyzed a major segment of our health care system for weeks. More than 25,000 residents of the Toronto area were placed in quarantine, myself included. The economic effects reverberated across the entire country. The SARS experience brought to a head growing concerns about the capacity of Canada's public health system to anticipate and respond effectively to public health threats.

In May 2003, the former minister of health appointed Dr. David Naylor, then dean of the University of Toronto's school of medicine, to chair a national advisory committee on SARS and public health to look at ways to improve Canada's public health system.

The committee on SARS and public health was established in early May 2003. The committee's mandate was to provide a third party assessment of current public health efforts and lessons learned for ongoing and future infectious disease control. Committee members represented disciplines and perspectives from across Canada. Several were directly involved in responding to SARS in different capacities.

The committee reviewed source documents, conducted interviews and engaged consultants to undertake surveys, additional interviews and analyses to illuminate aspects of the SARS experience. Advice was also sought from a constitutional legal expert. Over 30 non-governmental and voluntary sector stakeholders submitted helpful briefs and letters.

The Naylor report said that dealing successfully with future public health crises would require a truly collaborative framework involving different levels of government with a shared commitment to protecting and promoting the health of all Canadians.

As Dr. Naylor said, Canada's ability to contain an outbreak is only as strong as the weakest judicial jurisdiction in the chain of provincial and territorial public health systems. He said that infectious diseases cannot be addressed in isolation by any one public health entity. All levels of the public health system needed to be reinforced and their components more fully integrated with each other.

Pre-SARS there were no federal transfers earmarked for local and PT public health activities. Public health competed against personal health services for health dollars in provincial budgets, even as the federal government increasingly earmarked its health transfers for personal health services priorities.

The SARS story, as it unfolded in Canada, had both tragic and heroic elements. Although the toll of the epidemic was substantial, thousands in the health field rose to the occasion and ultimately contained the SARS outbreak in this country. It was no small feat. For that, their efforts should be applauded.

Following Dr. Naylor's report, a new federal approach to Canada's public health system took shape based on three pillars: first, creating a chief public health officer, CPHO, for Canada; second, building a pan-Canadian public health network; and third, building a federal public health agency.

In 2004, the Public Health Agency of Canada, PHAC, was created and the Public Health Agency of Canada Act was passed in April 2006.

As the main federal agency responsible for public health, PHAC supports about 2,400 researchers and staff, as well as a wide variety of programs and services offered by both the federal government and non-governmental agencies, NGOs, across Canada.

Long before the conception of PHAC, the federal government was working closely with the World Health Organization and other public health bodies to focus on initiatives to strengthen pandemic influenza preparedness, consisting of five program components. The position of the World Health Organization, WHO, with regard to a pandemic has always been that it is a question of when, not if.

The WHO worked with member countries to produce a global agenda for influenza surveillance and control to prepare for the next influenza pandemic and to coordinate international action in influenza surveillance and control.

The WHO urged all countries to develop or update their own plans for dealing with influenza. In keeping with the WHO global agenda, the federal-provincial-territorial governments in Canada established a pandemic influenza committee that produced the Canadian pandemic influenza plan, CPIP. Among other things, the plan provided a framework to guide the actions of all levels of government for prevention, preparedness and response implementation activities. Provinces and territories used the plan as a framework for developing their own plans.

In addition, in keeping with the plan, we took a number of important steps to strengthen its pandemic readiness. We increased surveillance and monitoring of influenza outbreaks to detect cases and clusters of severe or emerging respiratory infections and to effectively prevent and contain their spread.

Also, national case definitions and standardized laboratory tests and protocols were developed to ensure consistent approaches to diagnosing, managing and reporting cases of severe respiratory infection. An influenza pandemic vaccine contract was put in place to enhance capacity to produce enough doses to meet domestic supply needs based on one dose per person in the event of a pandemic.

A pandemic influenza preparedness strategy aimed at further strengthening Canada's pandemic influenza readiness was recommended. Building on activities identified in the CPIP and outstanding issues, the proposed strategy included: first, development and testing of a mock, for example a prototype vaccine, using the H5N1 virus to test domestic production capacity and enhance regulatory readiness to reduce the time later required to prove a pandemic vaccine; second, federal contribution toward the initial establishment of a national stockpile of antiviral medications; third, new research and development measures to improve Canada's influenza research capacity and to develop rapid vaccine technology for emerging influenza viruses; fourth, emergency preparedness and response measures to improve federal-provincial-territorial capacity to respond to an influenza pandemic through health and social service planning, testing of the CPIP and development of national standards for emergency social service, psychological, social service delivery; and fifth, communications and collaboration activities to engage stakeholders in the development of a national risk communications approach and to strengthen international collaboration.

Budget 2006 provided $1 billion over five years, years 2006 to 2011, to implement this preparedness strategy to respond to the threat of pandemic influenza, including a pandemic contingency fund. This money sought to strengthen federal capacity in seven major areas: vaccines and antivirals, surge capacity, prevention and early warning, emergency preparedness, critical science and regulation, risk communications and federal-provincial-territorial and international collaboration.

PHAC received $384 million over five years to strengthen federal human health capacity to prepare and respond to the threat of avian and pandemic influenza in several areas including: rapid vaccine development capacity and the purchase of antiviral drugs; support to on-reserve first nations communities in the development, testing and revisions of community level influenza pandemic plans; risk communications strategies, including social marketing campaigns; field surge capacity such as the deployment of field epidemiologists and laboratory experts to affected countries and quarantine officers to points of entry; establishment of the national veterinary reserve and Canadian avian influenza vaccine bank; and early warning surveillance in collaboration with the WHO.

In addition, Health Canada received $15.5 million to address the needs of first nations communities with respect to public health emergency planning and for regulatory work, including review readiness and safety monitoring for vaccines and resources for review and approval of antiviral drug submissions for the treatment of pandemic influenza.

The Canadian Institutes of Health Research, the CIHR, also received funding of $21.5 million. This continues to support over 140 pandemic and influenza-related projects that contribute to managing the current influenza outbreak. CIHR continues to examine this research in contribution to the understanding of the H1N1 flu virus and better management of this outbreak.

This funding was a significant investment that showed foresight, leadership and commitment to the health and well-being of all Canadians. It is because of this investment that Canada has been on the leading edge of the global response.

In fact, other countries have commented on how well Canada has been responding, including Dr. Margaret Chan, head of the WHO, who specifically commended Canada for all its efforts. I think Canadians would agree that we are well prepared on each and every level.

In May of this year the health portfolio accessed the 2009-10 contingency fund to support first and second wave activities. The health portfolio used the 2009-10 contingency funding to respond to urgent H1N1 pressures on PHAC, Health Canada and the CFIA and to initiate second wave planning. Thanks to these efforts, Canada is a global leader in pandemic planning and we are implementing the Canadian pandemic influenza plan to reduce the effects of a possible pandemic.

The pandemic plan is the product of an extensive dialogue and collaboration with provincial and territorial public health authorities, health care workers, scientific exports and academics. It is only through this foresight and advanced planning that the health portfolio has been in a position to respond as quickly and effectively as it has to the H1N1 virus.

I want to give the House an update. At the end of the first week of the largest mass immunization campaign in Canadian history, the Government of Canada supplied the following amounts of H1N1 adjuvanted vaccine doses to the provinces: in Ontario, 2,229,000 doses; in Quebec, 1,331,000 doses; in British Columbia, 818,000 doses; in Alberta, 622,000 doses; in Manitoba, 206,000 doses; in Saskatchewan, 173,000 doses; in New Brunswick, 129,000 doses; in Newfoundland and Labrador, 86,000 doses; in Nova Scotia, 160,000 doses—

[Wayne Easter]

Why don't you tell us how many you're short?

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

—in Prince Edward Island, 29,000 doses; in the Northwest Territories, 34,000 doses—

[Wayne Easter]

You're short 110,000.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

I hear some heckling from the other side. I had hoped we would not make little of this subject. It is very important for the provinces and the people of Canada to know. I am really disappointed with the continued heckling and politicizing of this.

In the Yukon Territory, we have provided 24,000 doses and in Nunavut, 22,000 doses. Today and tomorrow GlaxoSmithKline, the H1N1 vaccine supplier, will be shipping 486,000 more doses of vaccine to the provinces and territories.

I want to talk about H1N1 and pregnant women. Extraordinary efforts went into procuring unadjuvanted vaccine for pregnant women. The Government of Canada secured 225,000 doses of unadjuvanted H1N1 vaccine for pregnant women and the distribution is as follows: in Ontario, 86,800 doses; in Quebec, 52,000 doses; in Alberta, 28,600 doses; in British Columbia, 25,000 doses; in Manitoba, 9,200 doses; in Saskatchewan, 8,100 doses; in Nova Scotia, 5,400 doses; in New Brunswick, 4,400 doses; in Newfoundland, 2,900 doses; in Prince Edward Island, 900 doses; in Nunavut, 600 doses; in the Northwest Territories, 600 doses; and in the Yukon, 400 doses.

I hope this will show Canadians who are watching tonight and the opposition that we are rolling out our plan. We are ahead of schedule in our plan and we are committed to putting the safety of Canadians first.

[Maurizio Bevilacqua, Liberal, Vaughan, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as we know, this issue is a non-partisan issue. When we are dealing with human lives, we should stick with issues that matter to Canadians. Therefore, it is for this reason that I react poorly to the government blaming the provinces and the vaccine manufacturers for the issue Canadians are facing.

The hon. member ought to address some facts, which I will state right now.

The health authorities around the world saw this pandemic coming when it first hit in April. While many countries ordered their vaccine in May, the Conservatives waited until early August. The World Health Organization recommended production of H1N1 vaccine on July 7, but the Conservative government waited until after August 6 to place its vaccine order with GlaxoSmithKline, delaying vaccinations for Canadians.

When we look at other countries, other countries placed their vaccine orders much earlier than Canada. China began mass vaccination by administering the first H1N1 flu shots on September, Australia on September 30, the United States on October 3, Sweden on October 12, Japan on October 19 and Britain on October 21. Canada did not start administering the H1N1 vaccine until October 26.

Canadians deserve an answer.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians have been getting a consistent answer. I am very proud to be part of a government that has responded quite quickly to this pandemic.

I was in Washington a couple of weeks ago, attending a convention. Some of the top doctors from Tunisia, France, the United States, Australia, New Zealand and all over the world were there. Two things they complimented us on were the handling of the H1N1 pandemic issue in Canada and our economic action plan.

The member stood and said some things that he claimed to be facts, but he is simply wrong. I do not know how to explain it any better than that. We have not blamed anyone.

In fact, he talked about us ordering in August. Back in 2001, under his government, an agreement was made with GlaxoSmithKline to provide vaccines in an event of a pandemic. When we ordered, we ensured that we would have enough vaccine for each and every Canadian who wanted it.

To be specific, as of today, six million doses of the H1N1 vaccine have been delivered to the provinces and the territories. There is enough vaccine for all the priority groups. That is the number one in the world per capita amount of vaccine for our population.

Therefore, the member across the way, unfortunately again, is absolutely wrong.

[Jim Maloway, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the member talked about a very impressive strategy and gave us a history lesson as to how the situation has developed. However, the fact is, and my colleague, our health critic, mentioned this as well in her speech, we are not trying to blame people here. However, the government, if it has made a mistake, should simply admit that it has made one and promise to do better.

The public was of the understanding that there were 50 million doses. Liberal members have indicated when the orders were made and indicated when the process started.

We should have been screening the most at-risk people from the very beginning. Instead, the government simply started to roll out the program and vaccinated whomever showed up in the lineups. Then after only one week, it announced that it did not have enough to continue the next day. Alberta has closed its clinics for a week. That is not very good long-range planning.

There is nothing wrong in admitting a mistake has been made. If the government has made a mistake, just say that it has and that it will improve.