Bill C-293

Pandemic Prevention and Preparedness Act

An Act respecting pandemic prevention and preparedness

This enactment enacts the Pandemic Prevention and Preparedness Act to require the Minister of Health to establish, in consultation with other ministers, a pandemic prevention and preparedness plan, which is to include information provided by those ministers.
It also amends the Department of Health Act to provide that the Minister of Health must appoint a national pandemic prevention and preparedness coordinator from among the officials of the Public Health Agency of Canada to coordinate the activities under the Pandemic Prevention and Preparedness Act .

Pandemic Prevention and Preparedness Act

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at third reading stage of Bill C‑293 under Private Members' Business.

Before the Clerk announced the results of the vote:

The House resumed from June 3 consideration of the motion that Bill C‑293, An Act respecting pandemic prevention and preparedness, be read the third time and passed.

[Richard Bragdon, Conservative, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleagues in the House for this vigorous discussion around Bill C-293.

It is an honour to rise on behalf of the good people of Tobique—Mactaquac and the broader concerned citizens across the country today in regards to Bill C-293 and the debate on it.

Although some of the attempts of the bill may be laudable in regards to creating a framework for pandemic prevention and preparedness, there is a big, unfortunate aspect to the bill that would have huge ramifications and potentially even bigger implications with respect to the One Health approach that is being lauded in the bill.

First, I think it is broadly overreaching and going across various jurisdictional lines without giving adequate consideration for the legitimate concerns being raised by provinces, by stakeholders, by those in the agricultural sector and by privacy rights advocates. They all have concerns pertaining to the bill, Bill C-293, and where it could potentially lead. There is a lot of angst, which all of us have experienced at home, in our ridings and among the people we represent across the country. When we talk about COVID, it is almost like there is an element of PTSD that comes with that. People still can become very emotional when they are discussing COVID and the various responses to it.

It was stated by the previous speaker in the House that it was truly an unprecedented time, and it was. Many of us had never experienced anything like that in our lifetimes, and there were tremendous response efforts made across the country and internationally to address the concerns, to tackle the pandemic that was approaching and, then, as it set in. Various jurisdictions took different measures in ways they felt were best for their people. Coming out of that, I think all of us would have to admit that there were things done right and that there were things done wrong. There were outcomes we did not foresee. There were things done that created some really adverse effects amongst Canadians and amongst families even.

I remember being particularly moved throughout that time as I saw people from various sides of the equation approach me, call my office and reach out with heartfelt letters of expressions on various sides of the issue. They would raise concerns from, I believe, the best of intentions, but the one overarching concern that kept coming through was that they felt that their voices were being ignored and that they were being steamrolled in a process. If they had questions or if there were things they were uncertain about, sometimes they felt as though they were marginalized or labelled because they viewed things differently.

As has been called for by some parties in the House, including ours, we want a full review of the response. We want to look at what we got right and what we got wrong, and we, as Canadians, can be better prepared for a future pandemic, which, hopefully, we do not have to face again in our lifetimes. How can we best position Canada to go forward in response to that? We have called for those reviews, but those reviews have not been undertaken, as of yet. We have not seen an in-depth analysis done that we could examine whether Canada could have done better, whether we could have done things differently, and how we could make sure that we could be ready to tackle this comprehensively, if and when it happens again.

Obviously, there are huge concerns that would arise out of the bill, Bill C-293, being implemented, which would come from our provincial stakeholders, because this crosses into areas of provincial jurisdiction. As we know, different provinces handled the pandemic differently, based on their areas of jurisdiction. We must not undermine areas of provincial authority in response to this. We must work collaboratively on that.

I think that there is one big lesson that came out of our response here in Canada to what we just went through with COVID-19, which is that there has to be greater connectivity between the various levels of government as it relates to responding to it. We must listen to the concerns coming up from the regions so that it would be less us against them, less one against another, less one approach versus another, less one ideology versus another, and it would become more about how we could tackle this collaboratively and could welcome all voices to be heard so that there would be a transparent approach to the issue. If people felt that they had legitimate concerns, then they would not be marginalized, left out or trampled over, but they would be able to raise those questions and could have serious debate and discussion.

Obviously, we are hearing concerns from people as it relates to this, but this is even getting into a place where it crosses over international issues of jurisdiction. We must be very vigilant about protecting our sovereignty when it comes to our approach on this because we have some of the best of the best scientists in the world right here in Canada. Let us make sure that those voices are heard, that we come up with a Canadian response and that we prepare ourselves so that we have the necessary food security and the necessary supplies in place to protect our citizens when that time comes.

I would be curious to know what steps the current government is taking to make sure that we are ready, that we have the supplies needed and that we can handle it be less reliant on international circumstances or on other countries, which are obviously going to prioritize their own populations. Let us make sure that we, as a Canadian government, are doing everything we can do to prioritize Canada's approach and to have in place all that we need to deal with the circumstance, if and when it arises.

There are major concerns coming out of this bill, Bill C-293, as it has been proposed. It has not only concerns of jurisdictional overreach, but also concerns as it relates to the effects it may have on agriculture and on production of agricultural food. One thing we heard, repeatedly, was about our need to strengthen our own food security within Canada. Obviously, there is also a need to strengthen our energy security within Canada. That will be for another debate. We need to make sure that we have adequate supply chains and readiness available, as they relate to food, energy and health supplies, if and when another pandemic arises.

Let us make sure that we have a made-in-Canada approach to this. That does not mean that we should not work in collaboration with other nations whenever possible and should not do what we can to help others where needed, as well as not be the recipient of help when we need it, but let us make sure we never surrender our sovereignty over the rights to our approach to any kind of a health crisis in this country and make sure that we are best prepared now by learning the difficult lessons to be learned coming out of COVID. I remember getting the phone calls. I remember hearing the stories, as all members do, I am sure.

There are some very important lessons we needed to learn, with one being this: We, as elected officials, must prioritize the concerns of Canadians and must make sure that, even if we personally may agree or disagree, every Canadian feels that their voices are respected and are heard by their elected officials. We must take a responsive approach, not an arrogant approach, not a top-down heavy approach, but a bottom-up, grassroots approach where we let Canadians know that we have heard their concerns and that we get why they were upset. We understand that we are learning more things now about it, as well as about our response, that what was once considered settled has not been settled and that what was once considered to be an absolute certainty, as we found out, was not quite what we thought. In fact, sometimes it was the exact opposite.

With what we have learned, we are willing to adjust our approach so that if at any time a crisis hits this nation, rather than dividing our people, we would strive with everything in us to unite our people. That starts by respecting individuals with different approaches, with different philosophies and with different ways of looking at things. Maybe they see things differently, and perhaps if we listen, we could adjust, learn and develop a more comprehensive, holistic, made-in-Canada approach to solutions.

I appreciate being given the time and the opportunity to address the House on this issue.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Housing]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today with respect to a private member's bill tabled by the member for Beaches—East York, who, in addition to being a very good member of Parliament, is an excellent podcast producer as well. On a serious note, the member has put forward a number of bills in the time we have served together. They have been incredibly thoughtful, ranging from animal welfare when we were first elected back in 2015, which I thought was an excellent bill at the time though many others disagreed, to now a pandemic response bill.

Before my speech, I looked up information on the toll of the COVID-19 pandemic, and it is continuing. I know many of us like to think that COVID is over and we have gone back to life as normal. For many of us, we have. However, even last week, 12 Canadians died from COVID-19. In total, 59,382 Canadians died from it. That is more than the number who died in the Second World War. I know that there will be many commemorations of D-Day this week, and rightfully so, and we are still commemorating and remembering it 80 years later.

It is important that the member for Beaches—East York has brought this bill forward, because we do not want to forget what has happened in the last few years, including the lessons that were learned, how provinces, territories, municipalities and society at large were caught flat-footed. We need to do better as a society.

The member for New Westminster—Burnaby raised an excellent point in his speech about the environmental impact of the pandemic response. I believe the statistic is that 75% of diseases are animal-borne. As we are deforesting, as we are as a society globally moving closer and closer into wilderness, we are going to see that interaction. As the climate is changing, we are going to see the behaviour of animals, including mosquitoes and disease-carrying animals, change. Diseases that Canada may not expect because of our cold-weather climate may be something that we continue to experience, or will experience, in the future. We need to have a prepared pandemic response.

It would be nice to think that this is a once-in-a-hundred-years type of scenario. The Spanish flu post-World War I really tested Canada back in the 20th century. COVID-19, 100 years later, did the same thing. It would be naive to say that it is not something we have to worry about for another 100 years.

That is why I like what the member outlined with respect to establishing an expert review of Canada's COVID-19 response. We need to look back at what happened. I know that everyone, including provinces, municipalities, corporations and the federal government, did the best they could at the time under the circumstances. The word that was overused was “unprecedented”, but it truly was. We can take the lessons that we have learned about what can happen and apply them to what may happen in the future to ensure we have the proper supplies and vaccinations on hand.

I remember a time when there was unanimity among the parties in the House about the benefits of vaccination. Unfortunately, that unanimity seemingly disappeared. However, I think most of the parties in the House still support that as a core public health message, but we need to ensure that continues, as political opportunists across the country push aside public health and public health expertise when there is a threat to Canadians.

Public health and public health officials have spent their careers trying to protect. Maybe we do not like to hear that we should eat better, should run more, should get all of our shots and should do all the things we know we should do, like drink less. We may say that we will just leave it and that we will be fine, but embedded in that is a desire by public health officials to see us live longer.

COVID-19 has seen and shown, for the first time, declining life expectancies. The life expectancy in Canada is now slightly lower than it was before the pandemic, and this is something we need to address. All governments and all political parties should want to see this as a goal. I think there is an understanding, and I think there is an agreement that we should have as much as we can in place. Bill C-293 would require us to develop and update a pandemic prevention and preparedness plan and to table that plan at regular intervals. That is fundamental.

We have seen the impact of a pandemic. I would like to think that maybe one will not happen ever again, and I hope for my kids that we do not see one in our lifetimes, but the possibility and the probability exist. We should have that plan to ensure that we have proper equipment in storage and that we have plans in place for that “What if there is a next pandemic?”, because it is not unreasonable to see. Before 2020, we thought it was just something that we saw in movies to concern us about this type of threat to the country, but a pandemic is a direct threat to Canadians.

As I said, nearly 60,000 Canadians have died because of COVID-19, and I am happy to compare our response to other countries' responses, but even within Canada, many provinces did a much better job than other provinces. I recall the army having to go into privately run nursing homes in Ontario, an army that is not trained for that type of task, because, clearly, no one was ready for this type of pandemic; the result was that many seniors died.

This is an important bill to come forward. The third major point that Bill C-293 would require is to appoint a national pandemic prevention and preparedness coordinator to oversee and to implement the plan. We get a lot of plans tabled in the House, and I know that is a surprise to many people here, but it is excellent that there would then be someone in charge to implement it, someone who is keeping an eye on things and ensuring, through a public health lens, that we are ready for the next one, God forbid.

Again, we need to be prepared. We need to be ready. I want to commend the hon. member for his work on this and for his work on many other files, but it is important that Canada stays ready. We can compare our response to other countries' responses in a very favourable way in deaths that were prevented, but that number is still almost 60,000, and we need to ensure that should a pandemic hit again, we protect as many Canadians as possible.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we should be contemplating and debating this as it is of the utmost importance. Bill C-293, an act respecting pandemic prevention and preparedness, has two components to it, but we need to harken back to the impacts of the COVID pandemic.

Members will recall that, on March 13, 2020, the House, by unanimous consent, took the dramatic and unparalleled step of suspending its work, as the pandemic raged across our planet. I recall stepping up with the other House leaders and taking that unprecedented step with respect to parliamentary innovations and the changes that took place. For a number of months, we had to operate by unanimous consent. It was an exceptional time in our democracy, which ultimately led to the creation of a virtual hybrid Parliament. Members now, regardless of what emergencies they are experiencing in their ridings or families, can still fully participate across the length and breadth of the world's largest democracy, of our nation.

The impacts were felt, of course, right across the country. Indigenous communities suffered horribly through the course of the pandemic. We saw, particularly in long-term care homes, an appalling loss of life. We saw the images of some of those long-term care homes where the staff had become sick or were simply not present, where people passed away, or were not cared for or were unable to get basic medication or food. It was a terrible tragedy beyond the loss of life. We need to ensure that everything is put into place so that the next time a pandemic hits we are prepared right across the length and breadth of our country.

There are two components to this bill. One is the pandemic prevention and preparedness plan, which obliges the Minister of Health to establish a pandemic prevention and preparedness plan. We know from the impacts on long-term care homes, schools and indigenous communities that we must have this in place. However, there is nothing that prevents the Minister of Health from doing that already. Certainly, we support that idea.

However, to properly prepare for the next pandemic, and with the climate change, sadly, it is likely it will occur again, we need to ensure that we have done a very full and comprehensive review of the response that took place in the last pandemic. That takes a public inquiry. The NDP has been very clear about this. The idea that the minister would put together an advisory committee, which is what is foreseen in the bill, is simply not adequate to the size and scope of what needs to happen.

My colleague, the member for Vancouver Kingsway, who was the previous health critic, has been steadfast in raising in the House the importance of having a public inquiry, as have other parties. I know our colleagues in the Bloc Québécois have also called for a public inquiry into the COVID response. That is what is required. The resources need to be put in place. That is why my colleague, the member for Vancouver Kingsway, tabled the amendment that would take out the idea that we would have some sort of advisory committee doing that COVID response. That is not adequate, it is not appropriate and it is not at all what we favour.

We have the amendment now before the House of Commons. We will be voting on that before we vote on the bill itself. Unless the provision that an advisory committee will be offering suggestions on the COVID response, rather than having a full public inquiry, which is what the member for Burnaby South, the member for Vancouver Kingsway and all members of the NDP caucus have been calling for, is stripped out, we will not be supporting this bill. We believe profoundly that a public inquiry is warranted and needed.

We do not object to the Minister of Health preparing a pandemic prevention and preparedness plan. That absolutely needs to be put into place. However, it needs to come as we are fully investigating all aspects of what transpired during the pandemic.

We need to fully engage with the long-term care sector to know what led to such a terrible loss of life and, quite frankly, a meltdown in many of our long-term care facilities. Imagine seniors, who have given their lives to our country and to their community, not having any care aids around to help them with basic needs, of food and toiletry needs, and then so many of those who passed away in those long-term care homes not even having their bodies cared for after death.

This is an appalling result of a lack of preparation. It is an acknowledgement that the long-term care sector needs to be fully changed. The NDP has been calling for a long-term care act that obliges standards in every part of our country so that seniors are treated with the dignity and respect they should have. We are going to continue to push for that.

We believe in long-term care funding that is adequate across the country. We believe in taking profit out of the long-term care sector. Many of these private institutions, where the conditions were absolutely deplorable, were also multinational corporations that had huge profits in the same year. There is something profoundly wrong with that.

Since the days of Tommy Douglas, the NDP has called for a health care system that is a public health care system and is adequately funded. That is why we pushed for dental care and pharmacare. Later today, we will be considering the pharmacare bill in its final reading before the House of Commons. It is something we celebrate, but long-term care has to be front and centre as well. The idea that a corporation would profit at the same time as we see misery in the long-term care sector needs to be fully investigated in a public inquiry.

Indigenous communities received none of the supports that other parts of the country received. That needs to be fully investigated. Only a public inquiry would get to the bottom of why indigenous communities were so cruelly neglected during the height of the pandemic, and why communities that called out for supports did not receive those supports. Only a public inquiry could fully investigate that.

We believe profoundly that we need to prepare, sadly, for the next pandemic. The climate crisis sends a very clear message that in the coming years we will be tested again. We need to ensure that everything is in place. The NDP has been using its weight in this minority parliament to push for that so the conditions are in place. Despite the fact that two recognized parties in this place have been pushing to put in place that public inquiry, sadly we have not yet forced the government to do that. That absolutely has to happen.

The amendment we are proposing will eliminate this notion of an advisory committee reviewing all the repercussions of the pandemic. We think it is extremely important that a pandemic prevention and preparedness plan be developed. There is nothing stopping the Minister of Health from developing one now.

Most importantly, however, we need a public inquiry into all the issues related to the pandemic, including the impact on indigenous communities and long-term care facilities. All of these aspects need to be fully examined. The only way to do that is through a public inquiry. That is why we are proposing an amendment that will eliminate this negative aspect of the bill. If our amendment is adopted, we will vote in favour of the bill. If the amendment is not adopted, we will be voting against the bill.

[Sylvie Bérubé, Bloc, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to Bill C‑293.

As members know, this bill is divided into three main parts.

First, the bill “enacts the Pandemic Prevention and Preparedness Act to require the Minister of Health to establish an advisory committee to review the response to the COVID‑19 pandemic in Canada in order to reduce the risks associated with future pandemics and inform a pandemic prevention and preparedness plan.”

The bill “also requires the Minister of Health to establish, in consultation with other ministers, a pandemic prevention and preparedness plan, which is to include information provided by those ministers.”

Finally, “it amends the Department of Health Act to provide that the Minister of Health must appoint a national pandemic prevention and preparedness coordinator from among the officials of the Public Health Agency of Canada to coordinate the activities under the Pandemic Prevention and Preparedness Act.”

Basically, the first part concerns the creation of a committee to review the response to COVID-19. While the intention is laudable, we in the Bloc Québécois feel that an independent public inquiry would be a better way to judge the government's actions. The second part concerns the development of a pandemic prevention plan, and the third concerns the appointment of a federal coordinator.

The Bloc's criticism of these two elements is the same. We want to ensure that Ottawa does not overstep its jurisdiction. We believe that the federal plan should focus on its prerogatives. As a reminder, Ottawa not only failed in its responsibilities regarding these questions, but scuttled two important preparedness measures: the national emergency stockpile and pandemic detection.

Also, Canada has a guide entitled “Canadian Pandemic Influenza Preparedness: Planning Guidance for the Health Sector”, which was published in 2004 and updated as the various pandemics arose. This plan had been approved by the federal, provincial and territorial deputy ministers. Furthermore, the government inherited a number of plans, reports and recommendations from its departments and the Public Health Agency during previous pandemics, such as the response from the Public Health Agency of Canada and Health Canada to the H1N1 pandemic of 2009.

In this context, we have to wonder what the point is of the plan proposed by this bill. We believe that conducting the public inquiry should be the priority. I would remind the House that the Bloc Québécois voted against Bill C‑293 at second reading. It will also vote no at third reading.

An amendment negotiated among the parties sought to amend the bill to compel the holding of a public inquiry into the pandemic. The Liberal members voted against because they do not want to be held accountable on this subject, and the Conservatives, who had called for a public inquiry, abstained, which was so hypocritical of them. As a result of all that, we will not be having a public inquiry, much to the dismay of the Bloc Québécois.

Why does the Bloc Québécois want a public inquiry? First, the COVID‑19 pandemic caused 6.5 million deaths around the world, including 45,000 in Canada. There were over 15,000 deaths in Quebec, of which 40% occurred in long-term care facilities.

The families forced to grieve in appalling circumstances must not be forgotten. In my riding of Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, fear of this pandemic led to roads being closed and managed for emergencies. Indigenous communities took proactive steps by self-isolating, which caused other problems after the pandemic.

The Bloc Québécois believes that such an inquiry is overdue. Many pandemic-related failings have been noted, including in terms of quarantine, border management, national emergency stockpiles and the global public health information network. This more than justifies an inquiry.

Furthermore, certain measures curtailing freedoms, such as mandatory vaccine passports for all federally regulated transportation systems, vaccine mandates for federal employees and denial of access to EI deserve sober, non-partisan scrutiny. It is important to re-establish social dialogue now that the health emergency is behind us.

Finally, from the beginning of the pandemic, the government took action to improve the situation, for example signing agreements with pharmaceutical companies to improve Canada's vaccine production capacity. Therefore, it seems appropriate to do an overview to assess how effective those actions were. These are all good reasons to call for a public inquiry.

Also, certain elements of the bill are problematic for the Bloc Québécois and lead us to vote against it. For example, regarding the scope of the comprehensive review of the COVID-19 response, the bill proposes that Ottawa collaborate with provincial and municipal governments to assess the public health and pandemic response capabilities of those governments.

We in the Bloc Québécois believe that the inquiry should focus on the responsibilities and actions that come under federal jurisdiction. We also think that it us up to Quebec and the provinces to conduct their own assessment. Ottawa interferes enough in areas of provincial jurisdiction as it is. We will not give them an additional opportunity to meddle.

The Liberals are responsible for Canada's lack of preparedness for COVID‑19. While the current government likes to fashion itself the champion of the fight against COVID‑19, let us not forget that the lack of preparation was entirely their fault. They had axed the main pandemic protection measures in the years leading up to the COVID‑19 crisis.

The Global Public Health Intelligence Network, or GPHIN, is an online early warning system that monitors global news sources in nine languages for potential public health risks happening anywhere in the world. It was under the Liberals that GPHIN's mandate was amended in 2018. The Liberals wanted to exert control by imposing top-down approval to authorize alerts and thus control messaging. The alerts ended in May 2019, nearly 400 days before the start of COVID‑19. Bravo.

What is more, the Liberals neglected the national emergency strategic stockpile once they came to power in 2015. Their lax approach made it necessary to destroy thousands of personal protective equipment such as N95 masks. Worse still, not only did Ottawa destroy the emergency stockpile, but it failed to replace it. Consequently, the federal government was caught completely off guard when the pandemic was declared.

In addition, border management during the pandemic was an abject failure on the part of the current government. Its inaction was such that the City of Montreal had to dispatch its own personnel to Montreal Airport to enforce quarantines while the Liberal government, rather than protecting people, wondered whether the concept of borders was acceptable in a post-national state.

Then there is ArriveCAN and its many issues, not to mention the exorbitant cost. People were sent to quarantine in error, when they did not need to isolate. People who did not have smart phones or data did not have the same access, and there were all kinds of bugs that prevented access to the app. In short, ArriveCAN alone is worth looking into.

The management of temporary foreign workers during the pandemic was another disaster. Inspections were rushed and the immigration and refugee protection regulations were breached several times. Even after numerous warnings from the Auditor General, the situation did not improve and the department did not honour its commitments. In fact, the longer the pandemic went on, the worse the situation got. After being slow to shoulder its responsibilities, the government continued to refuse to present a plan to lift the health measures, which exacerbated the already severe difficulties being faced by the tourism sector.

The COVID‑19 pandemic also revealed Canada's dependence on vaccine production. From the beginning to the end of the pandemic, the government did some things right, but it made a lot of mistakes. We need to examine what failed, and a public inquiry is the only reliable tool we have. Unfortunately, this bill misses a good opportunity by omitting that option. We could get hit by another pandemic tomorrow morning. A public inquiry would help prepare us for this eventuality and prevent a lot of deaths. It could also spare us the isolation forced on a large swath of the population. Entire communities were isolated, as we were in Nunavik. Nunavik's 14 communities were cut off from the world for weeks, and must never be forced to endure something like that again.

The House resumed from March 19 consideration of Bill C‑293, An Act respecting pandemic prevention and preparedness, as reported (without amendment) from the committee, and of Motion No. 1.

[Warren Steinley, Conservative, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to join this debate on this private member's bill, Bill C-293.

There are a lot of conversations going around now about how a different approach to the pandemic would have looked. I want to go back a little and talk about how the pandemic did evolve, what the decisions by government were and how we should have a review of that. However, that review cannot be done by one of the Prime Minister's ski buddies. As my colleague, the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, said, it needs to be a transparent review.

It was not too long ago that Canadians were not able to come together to celebrate Christmas or Easter. I remember Canadians were not able to celebrate birthdays or funerals with one another or with family. That happened so quickly. It drove a wedge between Canadians. That is what the Prime Minister is so very good at, wedging and dividing Canadians. That is what we saw with the government's approach during the pandemic.

We saw the government stigmatize people who made different health choices. We saw people who were literally not able to travel. We saw people who wanted to work but due to a personal health choice were unable to go to work. Therefore, they were fired and were unable to support their families.

I think we learned a lot through the process of the pandemic. Coming out of it on the other end, where we are now, I believe Canadians would never go back and agree to the decisions that were made over that period of time. We did have a review of the approach the government took, and it was found that the use of the Emergencies Act was unconstitutional. The constitutional rights of Canadians were broken by the government.

How can we then have the same government put people in charge of doing yet another review? Trust has been broken. That is something that takes a long time to build back. There are so many things that happened during the months of the pandemic. We are now seeing that money was flying out the door, whether it be through CERB or CEBA, and how that money was allocated inappropriately.

The flagship of inappropriate spending that we see right now is the arrive scam app. Literally, a two-person company was given $20 million of taxpayers' money, and it did not have any IT expertise. It is unbelievable, as we are looking at some of this.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to rise to speak to Bill C-293 from my friend across the way. I think the last time I spoke to this bill, I was suggesting some slogans for his leadership campaign, but I continue to wish him very well in all of his personal endeavours. He did very well, although he did not take my advice to go with the slogan I suggested at the time.

I do, more seriously, want to recall and build on some comments I made in my last intervention on this bill regarding the impact the pandemic has had on our communities and the need to seriously reckon with some of the challenges that have resulted from that.

The last time I spoke in the House on this bill, I said that I wanted to conclude by saying that I am very concerned about some of the social and cultural impacts of this pandemic. Prior to the pandemic, we were already seeing trends where there was a breakdown of traditional community and greater political polarization. People were less likely to be involved in neighbourhood and community organizations, community leagues, faith organizations and those kinds of things, which were becoming more polarized along political lines. Those existing trends were dramatically accelerated through the pandemic, when the restrictions made it difficult for people to gather together in the kind of traditional community structures that had existed previously, and we have seen a heightened political polarization with people being divided on the basis of their views on masks and their vaccination status.

As we evaluate what happened during the pandemic, and this is more of a cultural work than a political work, we need to think about how we can bring our communities back together, reconcile people across these kinds of divides and try to rebuild the kinds of communities we had previously where people would put aside politics and were willing to get together and focus on what united them.

Over the last two weeks, with the exception of some arrive scam hearings that brought us to Ottawa, most of us were in our constituencies connecting with our constituents. I had a number of round tables and discussions with my constituents. It has really come to the fore again and again, as I have talked to people since the pandemic, how the failures of government during the pandemic impacted trust in government decision-making and, indeed, trust in our institutions. It would be desirable for people to be able to trust our institutions, but that trust has to be earned. Government policy-makers and public institutions cannot demand trust simply by virtue of the positions they hold. They have to earn that trust by demonstrating themselves to be trustworthy.

For many Canadians, the pandemic was a demonstration that institutions they had trusted were not as effective as they had thought they would be and were not defending their concerns or their interests. People were affected by the pandemic in various ways. They were, of course, forced apart from each other. They were also impacted by draconian policies that demonized people and punished people for personal health choices.

This has not just affected that moment in time. It is not just something that happened in the past during the pandemic and is now over. There have been profound consequences in social trust as a result of those events, and it was a result of the fact that the government was not prepared for this.

In the years before the pandemic started, in the years leading up to it, the government was not attending to the appropriate stockpiles of materials. Then the government madly thrashed around, giving different advice, such as saying one should not mask and then that one should mask. Initially, the public health authority said that masking was counterproductive and then reversed that recommendation. Initially, we were told to take any available vaccine, and then we were told to actually take these ones as opposed to those ones.

There was inconsistency, and I think a lack of humility, in the kinds of pronouncements that were made by governing authorities. This has affected social trust in significant ways, and understandably so.

We had an exchange on this specific point recently, during the break, at the public accounts committee, where, in the process of Conservatives criticizing aspects of government decisions, a Liberal member said we should not do that because that is impacting social trust. Our view is that government institutions have to earn trust, and it is our job as the opposition to hold them accountable for their failures.

Therefore, it is through accountability, through honest reckoning with the failures of government and other public institutions, that we are able to come to the kind of reconciliation that is required. I do think there is a stock-taking required. Although Conservatives do not support this bill because there are some significant problems in the way the proposed reviews are structured, as my colleagues have pointed out, there is a need for a fulsome and independent reckoning. The government failed in so many different ways in the course of its management of the pandemic and the kinds of decisions it made throughout.

In my own constituency, from conversations I have, people now struggle to believe anything they hear from the government or any other kind of official institution because of how badly betrayed they felt by the inconsistencies and the demonization that happened during the pandemic. We need to have a government that does its job, that plans for crises effectively and that understands its responsibility to earn the trust of Canadians rather than demand the trust of Canadians. Governments ought to try to earn people's trust through the work they do.

At the same time I think about the kinds of processes that should happen for investigations of this nature, and they require authentic independence. We see over and over again with the government that, when it wants us to be looking at or investigating some kind of issue, it always wants that investigation to be something where it can control the outcome. We are dealing with this issue, for instance, in the government's approach to the arrive scam scandal.

Every independent investigation has been extremely critical of government procurement. The government has now said it is going to have an internal investigation within CBSA by an investigator who is within and reports to the chain of command within CBSA. Inevitably, that is a process that can be controlled by the government, and the people who should be held accountable through that process actually cannot be held accountable effectively because the investigator is part of that internal structure. Again, we see a process proposed in this private member's bill that has similar obvious kinds of flaws.

To review the key points, the government failed profoundly during the pandemic. It contradicted itself and spent a great deal of money on matters that were not pandemic related. We saw it, in the early days of the pandemic, pursue this horrifying power grab, trying to seize on the worry that existed at the beginning of the pandemic, saying it wanted to have the power to effectively make law without Parliament. Conservatives pushed back and put a stop to that. Then we saw how it tried to use the circumstances of the pandemic to create division and conflict within this country at the expense of certain Canadians who were making certain choices.

There is a need for a reckoning, but it has to be an honest reckoning. We need a government that is prepared to do the work to rebuild trust, not a government, like the Liberals, that continually fails Canadians yet demands their faith and trust in spite of all these failures. We need a government that is honest with Canadians and works to get things done for their good.

[Majid Jowhari, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am thankful for the opportunity to speak to my support for Bill C-293, an act respecting pandemic prevention and preparedness.

Allow me to begin by recognizing and thanking the exceptional efforts of various health centres, health care workers, and compassionate individuals and organizations in my riding of Richmond Hill to safeguard the health and safety of Canadians throughout COVID-19.

First, I would like to recognize the efforts of long-term care health centres, notably Mariann Home in Richmond Hill, for their unwavering protection of our seniors and vulnerable community members during the pandemic. It is truly commendable that not a single long-term care facility in Richmond Hill lost a resident to the pandemic, which is a testament to their vigilance.

Second, I would like to recognize the immense contributions of our health care heroes, the doctors, nurses and workers, at the Mackenzie Health hospital in Richmond Hill and the dedicated team of health care professionals at Richmond Green facility, which was pivotal in administering vaccines across the community during the pandemic.

Third, I would like to thank the great compassion and generosity demonstrated by Richmond Hill residents and organizations, such as the New Canadian Community Centre and Canada China Trade Innovation Alliance, which donated personal protective equipment, masks and other supplies to hospitals and care centres across Canada.

Last but not least, I would like to recognize and thank all of our frontline workers who confronted high risks of COVID-19 exposure to continue providing critical, everyday services for our communities. These are our grocery store workers, police and firefighters, public transportation workers, small business owners, and social service workers.

I am so proud to speak of all the commendable efforts and hard work within the Richmond Hill community in safeguarding the health and safety of Canadians during the COVID-19 pandemic. Their contributions have inspired and guided our government's response over the last four years to the largest public health emergency we have experienced over the last 100 years.

I am also pleased to note that, as a member of the Standing Committee on Health, I had the opportunity to study the clauses of this bill in depth to ensure it would provide the best outcomes in protecting the health and safety of Canadians in preparation for future public health emergencies.

With all that being said, I am speaking to this bill today because it intends to achieve what has become particularly important to our government and to Canadians since the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, which is how we can deliver a system, in collaboration with provinces, territories, and health care partners, that would work to effectively prevent and prepare Canada for future pandemics.

Allow me to begin now to outline the three requirements that Bill C-293 would establish for the Minister of Health to create a strong federal response and preparedness plan. First, it would establish an expert review of Canada's COVID-19 response. Second, it would develop and regularly update a pandemic prevention and preparedness plan. Third, it would appoint a national pandemic prevention and preparedness coordinator to oversee and implement the plan.

The first requirement would be to establish an advisory committee to review Canada's response to the COVID-19 pandemic within 90 days of the act coming into force. The government has benefited from and taken actions in response to various reviews and assessments on Canada's pandemic response, including a number of COVID-19-related reports from the Office of the Auditor General of Canada. For example, based on lessons learned, the Public Health Agency of Canada has made progress on strengthening public health assessments and early warnings of public health threats, managing Canada's national emergency strategic stockpile of medical assets, and improving the collection, access, sharing and use of public health data in collaboration with provinces and territories.

These are just a few examples of where advancements have been made in addressing recommendations for improvement that would equip Canada to deal with future public health events more effectively and achieve better health outcomes for all Canadians.

I will now touch on the second and third requirements. The second requirement that the Bill sets out is for the Minister of Health to establish a pandemic prevention and preparedness plan within two years of coming into force. The development of a pandemic prevention and preparedness plan must leverage existing plans, recognize and address jurisdictional implications, and allow for a flexible, adaptable approach to emergency response and preparedness efforts, as every pandemic is different.

Lastly, the third requirement would be the appointment of a national pandemic prevention and preparedness coordinator. Their role would be to coordinate the previously mentioned activities under this proposed act. The Public Health Agency of Canada is currently working with key partners to incorporate lessons and practical application from the COVID-19 experience in Canada and internationally to support a robust approach to managing future health emergencies, including testing and updating preparedness plans.

It is also important to keep in mind that we must continue to work closely with provinces and territories, which are at the forefront of the health system in Canada and are responsible for implementing public health interventions within their jurisdictions.

Before concluding, allow me to touch on a key component of this bill, which is the adoption of a One Health approach. One Health recognizes that integrating science and expertise on human, animal, and environmental health is essential to understanding, preventing and responding to pandemics. To protect our own health, we must recognize how intertwined it is with the health of animals and the environment. This has been a very important concern of my constituents in Richmond Hill.

We fully support this approach, as it is one that is based on science and evidence. This has been integrated by the Public Health Agency of Canada into all its activities, thus helping to preserve the well-being of humans, animals and the ecosystem we all share.

In closing, protecting the health and safety of Canadians remains a top priority for our government in both the short and long term. This includes ensuring preparedness for future pandemics and global health events. That is why we are supportive in principle of several key elements underpinning this proposed legislation.

Once again, I thank the House for the opportunity to discuss Bill C-293 and highlight what the government is doing regarding pandemic prevention and preparedness.

The House resumed consideration of Bill C-293, An Act respecting pandemic prevention and preparedness, as reported (without amendment) from the committee, and of Motion No. 1.

Motions in Amendment

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise on behalf of the common-sense Canadians in the reasonable riding of Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke to reveal what this private member's bill is really about. I oppose Bill C-293 because it seeks to cover up the repeated failures by the government during the pandemic. I do not believe it is the intention of the member for Beaches—East York to cover up his party’s gross incompetence, but if passed, that would be the effect of this bill.

As more Canadians are forced to attend political re-education camps, they are only learning that intention does not matter, only effect. Similarly, I do not think it was the intention of the member to perpetuate harmful racist stereotypes about people who live in China, but this bill does have that effect. Thankfully, I have not been forced to attend a Marxist re-education program yet. That is why I still believe the intention does matter a great deal.

It is clear the intention of the member for Beaches—East York was to have the federal government undergo a critical examination of how it managed the pandemic, then use that knowledge to inform the next pandemic plan. We have all heard the calls for an independent public inquiry or a royal commission into the handling of the pandemic, but this does not do that.

Instead, this bill would have the Minister of Health appoint a committee of gender-balanced advisors. These hand-picked Liberal advisors would review not just the federal government’s actions, but also the actions of provincial and municipal governments. Barging into provincial jurisdiction seems to be a favourite pastime of the NDP-Liberal coalition. It also has the added bonus effect of diluting any possible criticisms that could come from a report prepared by people selected by the health minister.

That the member for Beaches—East York felt the need to bring forward this bill is a scathing rebuke of the NDP-Liberal government. Despite repeated assurances during the pandemic that the government would conduct an independent review, the Liberal member had so little confidence in his own government that he had to try to pass a law to get them to act responsibly.

At the same time, the Liberal cabinet had so little confidence in its caucus that even while this bill was before committee last October, the health minister was conducting a secret review. When journalist Paul Wells asked the government in November if there was a secret pandemic review, the government stonewalled him. If not for the Order Paper question put forth by the member for Yorkton—Melville, it is likely this secret pandemic review would never have come to light.

Fortunately, Canadians do not have to wait for the Liberals to release results of their secret pandemic review. The United States National Institutes of Health conducted a review of Canada’s pandemic response. Here is what it wrote:

In comparison with its southern neighbors in the Americas, namely the United States and Mexico, the Canadian experience appears to have been a relative success. However, comparisons with exemplars during the COVID-19 pandemic, such as Australia, New Zealand and South Korea, highlight shortcomings in Canada's pandemic preparedness and responses.

The British Medical Journal conducted a review in 2023. Here is what it found:

Experts found that lessons from the 2003’s SARS-CoV-1 outbreak had not been heeded and Canada’s governments and health authorities were ill-prepared for Covid-19, with fragmented health leadership hindering a coordinated response.

That quote from the journal of medicine really underscores a major problem with this bill. The 2003 SARS outbreak was supposed to be the wake-up call. It was the catalyst for creating the Public Health Agency of Canada. There was a pandemic plan in place, just as this bill calls for. There was an international pandemic surveillance unit, just as this bill calls for, except the Liberals gutted the surveillance unit to focus on flavoured vaping.

They ignored the existing pandemic plan and decades of emergency management practices, which brings us to this legislation. If all this bill was proposing was to have the health minister appoint some advisors and draw up a plan, it would already be moot. The minister already has the authority to appoint advisors and has already done so in secret. The government already has the authority to draw up a pandemic preparedness plan. If the government already has all the powers it needs, what is this bill really about?

Earlier I mentioned that this bill reinforces harmful racist stereotypes. With its focus on regulating agriculture and putting limits on land use to prevent urbanization, it reinforces the racist “wet market” theory. Despite the fact that the Wuhan Institute of Virology was conducting research on coronavirus carried by bats, which scientists had collected and brought back to Wuhan, many still believe the virus crossed multiple species at a live animal market.

For too many, it was easier to believe that people who reside in China live, work and shop for food in unsanitary conditions. These outdated stereotypes risk blinding us to the growing threat of bioterror and biowarfare.

For all of human history, the viruses which sought to kill us have been the kind which cross species, but we do not live in that world anymore. We live in a world of low-cost gene editing. The rapid development of mRNA shots illustrates just how powerful biotechnology has become, yet the bill is entirely silent on the most likely source of the next deadly pandemic. Instead, the bill seeks to use pandemic preparation as a pretext to advance the progressive ideological agenda, a communist manifesto.

The bill calls for new regulations on farming. It would grant the minister the power to shut down any type of animal farming deemed high risk. Say good-bye to the chicken and pork industries in Canada.

Before my Liberal colleagues begin screaming disinformation, I would encourage them to compare what subparagraph 4(2)(l)(ii) says versus subparagraph 4(2)(l)(iv). Subparagraph (ii) calls for the regulation of commercial activities, including industrial animal farming. Subparagraph (iv) says that any farming involving “high-risk species” is to be phased out. Nowhere does the bill define what a high-risk species is, but a reasonable person could assume that any species that has previously been the source of a deadly virus would be a high risk. There is a big difference between regulating risk and phasing out risk.

If the member were truly concerned about the pandemic risk of productive farming practices, he could have brought together farmers and scientists to come up with legislation to reduce risk. However, that is not the goal of the Liberal vegan base. They want to phase out livestock farming altogether. Using people's fears of another pandemic to push that agenda is diabolical. However, that is the difference between a Conservative vegan and a Liberal one. The Conservative vegans just want affordable fruits and vegetables for themselves, while the Liberal ones seek to impose their vegetables on everybody else.

For the record, not all far-left radical socialists are vegan. That is why the bill also calls for measures to promote “alternative proteins”.

Alternative protein is just a far-left dog whistle that means crickets. What is it with the far-left and their desire to have us all eat bugs? First they claimed we would have to eat bugs because of overpopulation. When that did not pan out, they seized on climate change and claimed that crickets produce fewer greenhouse gases per pound of protein, all the while portraying cows as climate criminals. Now, they are using the threat of future pandemics to phase out pork and poultry, while pushing their favourite alternative protein. Canadians are not biting; they see through this pretense.

What Canadians do not see is any real accountability from this government for the decisions taken during the pandemic.

With the member for Beaches—East York's reputation for independence within one of the most servile Liberal caucuses I have ever seen, it is easy to imagine the bill may have started out seeking real accountability. Unfortunately, the only contribution to pandemic preparedness the publication of the bill achieves is to increase the nation's supply of tissue paper. It would give powers to the health minister that the health minister already has. It seeks an advisory committee the minister has already appointed in secret. It reinforces the racist stereotypes of people living in China. It is a power grab for opponents of modern farming. It remains completely silent on the increasing risk that the next pandemic could originate in a laboratory.

At best, the bill is ineffectual. At worst, it opens an avenue for more regulation of land use and seeks to phase out modern farming. It may have been the intention of the member to use the bill to prepare Canada for the next pandemic, but the effect of the bill is to advance a far-left agenda while blinding us to the growing threat of bioterror. The bill is not worth the cost to Canadians.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

moved:

That Bill C-293 be amended by deleting Clause 3.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak to my report stage amendment to Bill C-293, the pandemic prevention and preparedness act. My amendment would delete clause 3 of the legislation for the simple reason that this section, if it were allowed to stay in the bill, would prevent the establishment of a transparent and independent review of Canada's COVID-19 response.

Instead, as currently written, it would establish an “advisory committee” that would report directly to the Minister of Health. In other words, the coach would acting as referee, as the minister would be appointing those very people. Moreover, the legislation contains no requirement that the results of that advisory committee's review be tabled in Parliament or be made available to the public. This is simply unacceptable.

In the NDP's view, Canadians deserve a root-to-branch, dispassionate, independent and fully public assessment of the lessons learned throughout the COVID-19 pandemic. Canada's New Democrats will not support any legislation that would prevent this. To be clear, our party strongly supports the other provisions outlined in the legislation. We believe that the Minister of Health should be required to establish a pandemic prevention and preparedness plan and appoint a national pandemic prevention and preparedness coordinator. If my amendment is adopted, New Democrats will support the legislation at third reading because it would preserve those valuable parts of the bill. However, if my amendment is blocked, we will not hesitate to vote against the bill.

It is important to note that the amendment at report stage would not have been necessary if the Conservatives and the Liberals had not joined forces at the Standing Committee on Health to block my motion to amend the bill to create an independent public inquiry to Canada's COVID-19 response. On October 23, 2023, I moved an amendment at the health committee to legally mandate that a COVID-19 inquiry, under the Inquiries Act, be launched within 90 days of Bill C-293's adoption.

Under the Inquiries Act, commissions of inquiry are established to impartially investigate issues of national importance and provide findings and recommendations. This is Canada's national legislation to get real answers to important public policy questions. Unlike the advisory committee proposed by clause 3 of the bill before us, however, commissions of inquiry have the power to subpoena witnesses, take evidence under oath, order production of documents and retain the services of technical advisers and experts. Hearings are held in public, and the commission's findings and recommendations are reported to the public.

Shockingly, however, the Conservatives sat on their hands and abstained on my amendment, allowing the Liberals, who voted against it, to effectively block such an inquiry. Interestingly, under the leadership of Erin O'Toole, the Conservative Party during the pandemic repeatedly called for an independent, expert-led public inquiry into Canada's COVID-19 response, and even currently they often criticize the way the federal government handled the COVID-19 inquiry, with many criticisms that the NDP shares. The Conservative Party pledged during the last election to call such an inquiry.

I can see why the Liberals would be reluctant to call an inquiry into their own government's COVID-19 response, but I find it rather difficult to understand why Conservatives colluded with them to block an independent inquiry into our country's response to the most severe pandemic in a century. Conservatives and Liberals joining a COVID collusion coalition, indeed. The Conservatives are fond of tossing around the word “coalition”. Perhaps they can explain to Canadians why they joined in a COVID collusion coalition with the Liberals to block an independent COVID-19 inquiry.

Perhaps they decided to flip-flop on the need for an independent inquiry last fall because, at that time, former Reform Party leader Preston Manning was urging the federal Conservatives to weaponize the dubious findings of his highly politicized COVID review. While the Liberals want to provide the illusion of oversight and accountability with inadequate internal reviews as contained in this legislation, the Conservatives seem to want to play political games with partisan reports. New Democrats, for our part, want a full, fair, fearless and public COVID-19 inquiry led by independent experts. That is because the NDP believes Canadians deserve answers, and we will settle for no less.

When the COVID-19 pandemic struck Canada, all levels of government had to respond to keep Canadians safe. People have the right to know why decisions were taken, what mistakes were made and if their government acted appropriately. Throughout the pandemic, New Democrats identified the eventual need for a fully independent, comprehensive and penetrating review of Canada's COVID-19 preparedness response. To date, the Prime Minister has deferred questions about a COVID-19 inquiry, only saying that there will be a time for a “lessons learned” exercise someday in the future.

In September 2022, the former Liberal health minister noted that a government decision could come “soon” on what kind of review should be held. However, when asked if it should be independent, he would only say that a strong review is necessary.

With the emergency pandemic conditions behind us, the NDP believes it is unacceptable that the Liberals still have not called an independent review of Canada's response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Frankly, we are shocked that the Conservatives blocked one. Instead of papering over the federal government's inadequacies and failures, we must leave no stone unturned to learn from past mistakes and to prepare for future threats.

Many prominent public health and security experts have called for the federal government to launch an expert-led independent inquiry into Canada's COVID-19 response. For example, the British Medical Journal recently published a series that examined Canada's COVID-19 response, and it called for an independent national inquiry. The series' authors are experts across a diverse range of clinical and research areas. The picture that emerged from their review was an ill-prepared country with outdated data systems, poor coordination and cohesion, and blindness about its citizens' diverse needs.

The authors found that what ultimately saved Canada was a largely willing populace that withstood stringent public health measures and achieved among the world's highest levels of vaccination coverage voluntarily. In other words, Canadians stepped up during the COVID-19 pandemic while their governments faltered.

Major questions remain, including whether vaccine mandates were warranted, why infection-acquired immunity was ignored and why federal emergency preparedness was so inadequate. There are many more important questions that Canadians want answers to.

The British Medical Journal series outlined many reasons why an independent inquiry is needed in Canada. Here is the first:

...failing to look to the past will ensure an unchanged future. Undoubtedly, lessons can be drawn to inform new health investments and preparedness, and much learning comes from decisions and actions that failed or faltered.

Positive lessons can also pave the way to a better future, when we can review what went right.

Second, lacking an independent federal inquiry allows others to step into the frame. For example, the so-called National Citizens Inquiry, launched by Preston Manning, has been fuelled by misinformation, ideology and conspiracy theories.

Third, an inquiry would help deliver on Canada's ambition to be a leader on the world stage, since domestic and global health security are linked.

Fourth, an inquiry would provide an actionable framework for reforming Canada's health care and public health systems, which were struggling prepandemic and are currently on life support.

Finally and most importantly, an inquiry would provide accountability for the nearly 60,000 direct deaths and five million cases of COVID in Canada that devastated families and left a legacy of long COVID for many in their wake.

New Democrats agree with the British Medical Journal. We are calling on the federal government to call an independent public inquiry into Canada's COVID-19 response without delay. For that reason, we are moving this amendment today and can only support this legislation if it is adopted.

We cannot accept an inadequate whitewash. Only a root-to-branch, fearless, comprehensive, thorough, public and independent COVID-19 inquiry will do in these circumstances. Canadians deserve no less. Only the NDP is standing in this House to demand that. That is what is fuelling this amendment today.

Speaker's Ruling

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

There is one motion in amendment standing on the Notice Paper for the report stage of Bill C-293. Motion No. 1 will be debated and voted upon.

The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-293, An Act respecting pandemic prevention and preparedness, as reported (without amendment) from the committee.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Before the bell rang to call for the vote, at the end of our last meeting, I was saying that I had been very patient. I pointed out that I had signed the request for a meeting under Standing Order 106(4) on November 2, when journalists had already been questioning the Public Health Agency of Canada for a week. I found it curious that just as we were filing this request, the minister, as if by a miracle, started talking.

During our discussions last time, our colleague Mr. Davies said that the role of a parliamentarian was, among other things, to ask questions about governance, but above all to try to control government spending. This is the role assigned to us by our mandates. When a public health agency fails to answer simple questions, it seems to me that it's urgent to intervene.

The last time, the question of urgency was invoked. Now, there was an issue that was becoming increasingly urgent in relation to the management of the pandemic. However, this committee refused an amendment during the study of Bill C‑293 which aimed to establish an independent public inquiry, under which a body could have been set up by a judge which would have had the powers normally attributed to such a commission of inquiry, such as that of subpoenaing witnesses, for example. From the moment the government doesn't want an independent commission of inquiry as the legislation prescribes, and the Public Health Agency of Canada decides not to answer simple questions about contracts, it becomes urgent to intervene.

Is a culture of omerta taking hold at the agency? Do we have to wait for the minister's signal to finally reveal what voters need to know? One hundred and fifty million dollars is not a trivial sum.

I have total respect for institutions, because parliamentary democracy requires respect for institutions. However, Parliamentary Budget Officer Yves Giroux said that, in this case, the refusal to disclose any information about a $150 million loss is highly unusual. He would have expected the department to be able to provide at least some details. In his view, if the department can't or won't reveal the name of the company, it should at least explain the circumstances under which it happened. After all, a $150-million loss on a contract deserves some explanation.

For the benefit of those listening tonight, let me remind you that the Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer is an institution that is totally independent of the executive.

Kevin Page, the former parliamentary budget officer, said it was a significant total loss. He finds it unacceptable that the Public Health Agency of Canada refuses to answer our questions about how the money was spent or written off.

It seems to me that these opinions should be respected. I'm not motivated by partisanship in saying this.

On the other side of the room, people are implying that there are more urgent things to do and deal with. I'm well aware that the Standing Committee on Health is very busy pursuing its studies and adopting its reports. I myself have waited a long time for the study on breast implants and the creation of a breast implant registry to come to fruition. In fact, we're not far from adopting this report and its recommendations before tabling it in the House.

Our committee is very busy, but that's no reason to overlook an event like this. So I expect we'll agree very quickly that we need to do this study. We can do it as proposed in the subamendment or the amendment; but insofar as possible, I'd like to avoid doing what we did last time—let's not take a whole session to try and convince our colleagues, who still refuse an independent commission of inquiry, that we should go ahead. In fact, we're prepared to rearrange our timetable accordingly, i.e. we can do both: we can spend part of our meetings dealing with routine business, if I can put it that way, and another part dealing with this study. If we could all agree to this, it would be to the benefit of all, and especially the citizens, who are entitled to explanations.

I experienced the management of the pandemic right from the start, during the meetings of the Standing Committee on Health, with Mr. Powlowski and Mr. Davies in particular, if I'm not mistaken. For a week or two, the Standing Committee on Health was the only committee in session. Then the Standing Committee on Finance started sitting too. So it was clear that we were dealing with emergency management. I tried to examine this emergency management and ask questions responsibly. When I agreed to sit on the Standing Committee on Health, the first thing I said was that I would not use health issues to play petty politics, that I would act responsibly. I challenge anyone around the table to find a single statement of mine, after the pandemic happened, that was tinged with partisanship.

Even today, I take the floor not to delay our work, but to try to redirect things a little. It's true that we have our work cut out for us. It's true that we have important matters to deal with. However, it's also true that the Standing Committee on Health must play its role as a check on the executive and question the management of the pandemic, especially since, I repeat, the government doesn't want an independent public commission of inquiry. Yet it could answer questions and shed light on all aspects of the pandemic.

We experienced this situation at the Standing Committee on Health. We told ourselves that it wasn't time to lay blame, but that it was time to succeed in obtaining vaccines and personal protective equipment. Mr. Powlowski was right to say so last time. We were told that the timetable for creating a vaccine, even if we sped things up, even if everyone worked together, would be between two and a half and five years. In the end, it turned out to be much faster. I also remember how, at one point, the opposition parties were urging the government to reserve vaccines. I remember that. We said we should have as wide a range as possible, because we didn't know which vaccines would work. There were various ideas about that.

I don't want to do the job that a commission of inquiry would do. That said, at the start of the pandemic, scientists were telling us how great it was to see information being exchanged and everyone working towards the same goal. Personally, I wondered if it would be like that right to the end. I wondered if, on the day when someone came up with a vaccine, we would continue to exchange all the information and vaccinate the whole planet simultaneously. That's not what happened. Personally, I thought there would be coordination between the World Health Organization and the rich countries, so that what finally happened would not have occurred. In my opinion, in their way of appropriating vaccines, rich countries all over the planet missed the mark.

Of course, there was pressure. The opposition parties were lobbying and asking the government if we were going to come in at the back of the queue. They wondered why the U.S. had received vaccines when we hadn't yet. This led to purchases of vaccines before Christmas, but they cost us much more than they did elsewhere.

You can see that my words are not motivated by partisanship.

I'm only talking about one episode. I remember that all the parties made a joint public statement about temporarily lifting the patents because there was a supply problem. Why were there several variants? Because people did not have access to vaccines in certain parts of the world. Since Canada, as a wealthy country, had access to a variety of vaccines to counter the variants, it began sending vaccines that were almost out of date to other countries. What's more, in these countries, the vaccine deployment chain was not yet organized, not to mention all the constraints this imposed on us. For example, vaccines had to be stored in freezers or kept cold. A lot of resources were wasted, and we couldn't take advantage of the patents to vaccinate the population on the spot. In short, we made a lot of mistakes, all over the planet, during the pandemic.

If we're not willing to rise above partisanship to shed light on the situation we experienced, determine what could have been done better and admit the mistakes we made, how are we going to manage to learn from them? Only a public and independent commission of inquiry could have led to this.

As we know, there was a global information network, which was recognized. How is it that it was ineffective and that some countries on the planet waited for the flag to be raised? Was this the responsibility of a single government, or was it the result of other decisions? A public inquiry would reveal a great deal. Still, we're not going to be able to draw any conclusions, since I don't see any willingness to hold a public, independent inquiry.

As soon as you choose to treat things à la carte, everything becomes urgent. That's effectively what we've decided to do. Because we don't want to create a public and independent inquiry, we'll see the same situation over and over again. Every time a situation arises about which we have questions, and certain government bodies maintain a culture of opacity rather than transparency, we're going to end up with timetables that are upset or mishandled, because we have to shed light on a situation. Now, when you don't want to approve a public inquiry, you can't shed light on a situation 10 years later.

There's one key word to remember from this whole story and from what I've said. When I signed this request for a meeting under Standing Order 106(4), it wasn't because I wanted to filibuster, it was because I wanted us to act with transparency.

The day citizens lose confidence in their institutions, we'll have only ourselves to blame, because we ourselves will have abused our institutions and failed to give them the respect they deserve. We unfortunately experienced this during the pandemic.

Some might consider that my comments are based in political philosophy or a certain conception of the state, and say that the Bloc Québécois, the Conservative Party and the NDP want to delay another very important study, but that's not what's happening. Personally, I'm trying to see if the people on the other side of the table would accept a compromise whereby two subjects would be dealt with at the same time. I'm not going to reveal things that have been said behind closed doors, but could we agree to keep the working arrangement we had behind closed doors the same when the cameras are on? That wasn't the case over the last few weeks, and we've suffered a bit for it. We could establish a work plan that consists of following our schedule while reserving part of our meetings to shed light on this issue, even if it means adding session hours.

I can work hard. I got up at 5 this morning and haven't stopped. I'm here and we're going to finish at 9:30 p.m. That's what people expect of us, to work hard. We worked hard seven days a week during the pandemic and we continue to do so. That's what we're here for and we love it.

So I'd like us to agree to reach our goals by Christmas. We can meet our planned work schedule and still allow ourselves to get to the bottom of this issue by hearing the witnesses who would be subpoenaed pursuant to this motion.

If there were a consensus, and if I understood the suggestions made by Mr. Davies, Mr. Ellis and Mr. Hanley last time, we could hold three-hour sessions. Two hours would be devoted to studying the issues we have agreed to take forward and the reports we have to adopt; the last hour would be devoted to the appearance of a key witness so that we could ask him questions about this unfortunate revelation, and above all, about this attitude we see which consists in saying that nothing will be revealed about it. This attitude is open to criticism, and it's on this that we urgently need to ask questions.

There are people who say we knew very well who it was. In any case, if the Parliamentary Budget Officer didn't know, it wasn't all that clear, even if you can always trace it back and find the information. So it's urgent to ask questions about this culture of opacity and get to the bottom of it.

Mr. Jowhari, last time, was saying that it was wrong to claim that the $150 million had been for nothing, since in the end it had been used to create a vaccine. We're talking about a vaccine that no one will be able to benefit from, but that's a different kettle of fish. It's a matter of interpretation. However, it would be the least we could do to allow us, as parliamentarians, to ask all the questions that need to be asked and to let all the organizations that report to the Minister of Health know that the members of the Standing Committee on Health will not let anything pass. Whenever a problem like the one we've just experienced emerges, we'll set aside time in our work to examine it, because that's our duty. That's what we were elected to do.

I'm going to stop here, because I'm thinking of my colleagues who are listening to me. A consensus seems to be emerging and I want to avoid looking like the one who is unduly delaying the work, which is not my objective. I may speak later in response to an intervention that might inspire me. For now, if my colleagues agree, we could vote on the subamendment, then on the amendment, and finally on the motion. The solution I propose seems to me to correspond to that expressed by Mr. Hanley, Mr. Ellis and Mr. Davies.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[Majid Jowhari, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

The $150 million is not lost. It resulted in a vaccine approved by Health Canada.

What happened subsequently is of interest. Again, since my colleagues like to refer to the media reports, I'd like to quote a February 2, 2023, report from CBC. It reads:

Then in March, the World Health Organization decided not to accept Medicago's COVID-19 vaccine for emergency use, citing the company's ties to big tobacco. Marlboro cigarette manufacturer Philip Morris International was once a shareholder of Medicago, but divested all of its shares in late 2022.

Can the $150 million be accounted for? Yes. What was it invested in? It was invested in R and D. Did the R and D result in a vaccine being developed that was approved by Health Canada? Yes. Did the business go forward? No. Why? The World Health Organization didn't approve it because of ties to a tobacco organization, which meant that the vaccine that was manufactured was available domestically, but not internationally. That's therefore a business decision by Medicago and Mitsubishi, which is probably worthy of a study.

Now we come to the other part of this. There was $173 million also invested in Medicago for the site expansion, after the approval of the vaccine by Health Canada. It is worthy of study to see whether the $173 million actually went to the site expansion and what the status of that site expansion is.

When we look at this motion and see it's talking about “lost” rather than a business loss, it raises questions. When we see unfulfilled contracts, there are grounds for us to look and see whether the contract was fulfilled or not. The AG has done that. Whether it's $300 million.... It's not.

Also, the public accounts committee is actually doing this study. The notion of this study as it is in the motion is not acceptable to our side. Based on referring to the media, there are areas that the media has not had the opportunity to explore and that may potentially lead to misinformation.

I'm not going to make any comments on the other.... My colleagues talked about many other items, which we will deal with in the election in 2025.

I want to close by saying that I believe this is another tactic by our Conservative colleagues to delay the study of women's health. Today we were supposed to start the study of women's health. We have the children's health report that is not completed. We have the breast implant report that is due for its second version, with some very good recommendations, which we need to finalize. We have the PMPRB study, which is now going to get pushed back. We have the PPE study, and we know the fate of Bill C-293.

Mr. Chair, there are areas of concern in this motion. I'd like to look at a modified or amended version of this motion for us to be able to bring total clarity to the issue of where the $150 million was spent—we know who spent it and what it was spent on—and the state of the $170-million site expansion.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[Stephen Ellis, Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester, NS]

Thank you very much, Chair.

My deep apologies to the translators. The passion, I'm afraid, overtook me, and I apologize deeply for that.

That being said, why did I wander back to the bill at hand? Because there were accusations around this table that said this was a filibuster to get rid of Bill C-293.

I would love nothing more than to continue to talk about this bill. Sadly, there's something that is way more pressing when 20 Canadians a day are dying; 20-plus Canadians a day are dying because of a failed NDP-Liberal coalition experiment. Unfortunately, the NDP member, who believes himself to be the arbiter of this committee, continues to want to interrupt, even though perhaps, if closer attention was paid to the incredibly important words I'm saying, he would understand the connection to the injustice attempted upon the Conservatives in suggesting that this was a filibuster related to Bill C-293.

That is why I needed to make that connection to the matter at hand, related to homelessness and the ongoing opioid experiment, which continues to be perpetrated, propagated and perpetuated by the petulant Liberals. That causes great consternation for all of us who sit on this side, the Conservative side of the House.

What we know very clearly is that safe supply is a failure. It is a failure, an abject failure. It doesn't matter which euphemism we wish to say about it, whether we want to call it “safe supply” or “safer supply” or “safest supply”. Again, those are the superlatives we have at our use in the English language. Whichever one we want to use, we know that it is an experiment, and we know that it has failed. We know very clearly that this is a lesson from history. Not to be too trite, but we know that those who refuse to listen to, know or believe history are doomed to repeat it.

When we look back at the Purdue Pharma fiasco, at the tragedy, as mentioned in this article, we know very clearly that Purdue Pharma misrepresented the risk of addiction. As this article talks about, there was a systematic effort to minimize the risk of addiction and the use of opioids for the treatment of “chronic non-cancer-related pain”. One of the most critical issues regarding the use of opioids in the treatment of chronic non-cancer pain is the potential of iatrogenic addiction. I'll come back to that.

The article states, “The lifetime prevalence of addictive disorders has been estimated at 3% to 16% of the general population.” When we look at that, what does that mean? It means, for those being prescribed opioids for chronic non-cancer pain, that even by giving them opioids there was a likelihood that they were going to become addicted to them.

Now what are we doing? At the current time, this NDP-Liberal government is not prescribing them carefully in small quantities and in small dosage amounts. They are giving these medications to Canadians for free in large quantities: an incredibly potent opioid called hydromorphone. When we look at that, colleagues, that is anathema to the suggestion that, after the historical tragic events related to Purdue Pharma, we all need to hear the lessons thereof, such that we are now doomed to repeat them, and that is exactly what we shall do.

Mr. Chair, if I may, may I have a point of clarification? If I agree to adjourn this meeting, will I still have the floor when we pick it up next time?

[Stephen Ellis, Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester, NS]

Do you know what? It's fascinating to me that the former Liberal speaker—I don't know if that's the right term, but he certainly was elected as a Liberal—was talking about decorum.

What do we have over here? When it becomes uncomfortable, we have colleagues of mine, who know that this is an incredibly important and difficult topic, wanting to interrupt. I think that is a bit baseless. It is juvenile and incredibly inappropriate that we don't want to talk about the issues that we know are being brought forward because of the policies of the Liberal government.

We know it. Everybody here knows it, and do you know what? It's uncomfortable and it's painful and it's unpleasant, yada yada yada—too bad. Canadians are now uncovering the abscess that exists in their own country, which is that Liberal government, supported by these members across from me, where I'm pointing. They need to grow up and decide what side of history they want to be on. That's their choice.

As I was saying, on the MAID regime, which I sadly had to sit through as a member of Parliament—“sadly” because oftentimes it would appear to me that there was a gleeful nature of the Liberals as they brought forward more and more abilities for Canadians to kill themselves—what we saw there, very clearly, is that depression is in its infancy in terms of diagnosis and treatment. Now we will have a regime in this country that is not supported by Canada's psychiatrists. We know that very clearly.

There is one psychiatrist on that committee who continues to push forward that agenda, and now what do we see? We see other folks who want to take advantage of that and are suddenly saying: “Hey, you know what? People, sadly, are addicted to drugs. Let's let them end their lives.” My colleague here has an interesting article with pictures of people who died of overdoses and pictures of them as children. Everyone around this table and anyone who's listening out there knows that no kid in this country grew up saying, “I wish that, when I grow up, I will be addicted to drugs.”

This safer/safe, government-sponsored, hydromorphone-doling-out-for-free program is allowing them to continue to be addicted to drugs. That is a very sad state of affairs in this country, especially when.... I don't even know how many Liberals there are in the House of Commons. There are too many—I know that. They know the difference, and they refuse to stand up and be counted and to understand that this is an incredibly slippery slope that we are going down.

Not only are we now providing drug addicts with drugs for free—drugs that we know are being sold from the investigative reports of people like Adam Zivo and also from the physicians my colleague named and the letters they've sent to this government, and from other physicians who are too afraid to come forward because they're afraid their professional reputations will be sullied by this Liberal government—but we continue to allow this to happen. Shame, shame, shame. That's what I say—shame.

To go back to this original letter that we have received from Dr. Robert Cooper, which was sent to, again, the Minister of Mental Health and Addictions, it says that it is reckless for people suffering from addictions, as it is not supervised to ensure it is taken safely in the manner intended by the manufacturer. Also, it is provided in a way so that it can be and is being sold, with the funds utilized to purchase even more potent and dangerous opioids such as fentanyl.

We hear that this is the enemy: a toxic supply. This is what the Minister of Mental Health and Addictions, who came before this committee before, said: that this is a dangerous drug, that it's toxic, but if we give them something else, then they'll stop using fentanyl.

Sadly, we know that is the high the people who are addicted to drugs want. They want a high from fentanyl. All they are doing, very simply, is taking the hydromorphone that is being supplied for free and selling it to kids and other people who have never used opioids before, and they are then buying fentanyl with the money.

This is not a great stretch of imagination or a fantasy or the unicorns and fairy dust that we hear from this Liberal government on other topics. This is fact that is being reported from people who work in the system. This is being reported by people who use the drugs on the street.

Why do I say it slowly? It's because it appears that is the only way it can be heard by my Liberal colleagues. Why is it that we need to talk forever in this committee to get anything through? It's because otherwise there'll be a motion to adjourn the debate on this, which we have already seen.

I shall continue.

It is provided with a reckless disregard for our communities, as it has increased the availability of high-potency pharmaceutical-grade opioids on our streets and increased the number of people suffering from addiction. They are seeing more people. These are addictions experts. This is what they do. They are seeing more and more people coming and saying, “Wow, I have a problem with drugs and—guess what—I had free hydromorphone supplied by the government” or “I got the free hydromorphone supplied by the government, and—guess what I did with it—I sold it and bought something else with it.”

They are selling it. Are they buying more fentanyl? They probably are. Are they trying to live because of the incredible crushing inflation and cost-of-living crisis that this Liberal government has created through their reckless spending? Yes, of course they are. If they can't afford to put a roof over their heads, the likelihood, of course, of their being addicted to opioids is probably greater. If they're addicted to opioids, it is much more difficult for them to put a roof over their heads. Can they feed themselves? They can't do that well. Can they heat their homes? Well, they don't have any homes to heat. We know that very clearly.

Continuing to punish Canadians is what this Liberal government is bent on doing with their NDP coalition partners.

Third, it is reckless, a complete failure of monitoring and supervision, and an abrogation of the responsibility to do so, with an apparent reliance on the criminal justice system to prevent diversion when it is widely known that the criminal justice system has already failed to prevent the sale of opioids during the current opioid epidemic.

Colleagues, one of the things that I think are important for us to begin to understand is how related this epidemic that we have is to the OxyContin crisis. We know very clearly that in popular literature—and if you're not a student of history, you can look at Netflix, on which there is a series called Painkiller. We know very clearly that this tragedy that exists on Canadian and American streets at the current time is realistically related to the promotion and marketing of OxyContin.

There is an interesting article in the American Journal of Public Health entitled exactly that, “The Promotion and Marketing of OxyContin: Commercial Triumph, Public Health Tragedy”. This public health tragedy continues.

We know very clearly from this article.... It talks about controlled drugs. It has an American flavour to it and certainly it's not a style that we talk about in Canada, but we talk about opioids. Certainly realistically they are controlled drugs in terms of how they are supposed to be prescribed and given out in a very controlled manner by responsible physicians to those who need them, who we now know, as a cautionary tale, are not very common.

This article starts:

Controlled drugs, with their potential for abuse and diversion, can pose public health risks that are different from—and more problematic than—those of uncontrolled drugs when they are overpromoted and highly prescribed.

We have an asinine situation now where these drugs are not only not prescribed, but they don't cost anything. They're not just highly prescribed; they're highly given out. There is no place in the world where anyone could possibly fathom that. Not only are these drugs, as we clearly know, dangerous and should be controlled, but they are now being given out by this government.

What did I say previously about fentanyl? We talked about fentanyl. What makes it so dangerous?

This is from Canada.ca:

It is 20 to 40 times more potent than heroin and 100 times more potent than morphine. This makes the risk of accidental overdose very high.

Realistically, we know that hydromorphone is a little less potent than fentanyl—understandably. It is dosed in milligrams, not micrograms. We know very clearly that is very different. I understand that. That being said, for those who don't partake in opioids or haven't had the need to use opioids, we know these drugs are incredibly dangerous. Not only are they now highly prescribed; they are just given out. They are given out for free. How does that make any sense?

When we look at this.... This talks about an “in-depth analysis of the promotion and marketing of OxyContin”, which is also known as oxycodone. We know that:

When Purdue Pharma introduced OxyContin in 1996, it was aggressively marketed and highly promoted. Sales grew from $48 million in 1996 to almost $1.1 billion in 2000.

Listen to this:

The high availability of OxyContin correlated with increased abuse, diversion, and addiction, and by 2004 OxyContin had become a leading drug of abuse in the United States.

It is certainly not different in Canada.

That was in 2004. It had a $1-billion market in 2000 in the United States, and in 2004, it had become the leading drug of abuse in the United States. That was in 2004. That was 19 years ago.

Nineteen years ago, everybody, it seems, knew that OxyContin was a leading drug of abuse in the United States, and here we are, decriminalizing.... I'm sorry. We are not just decriminalizing drugs in this crazed experiment, but we have a government that is giving out opioids—exceedingly potent opioids—for free. It's giving them away.

If anyone out there could possibly make any sense of the fact that we know what happened, as a cautionary tale, with OxyContin, oxycodone, beginning in the United States and the trickle-down effect into Canada, and now we have a government that seems to.... I can't even.... It defies my ability to understand how a government could possibly think that giving its cousin out for free would help an addiction, an overdose, an overdose death, homelessness, affordability or a cost of living crisis get any better. That does not make any sense at all. It is mind-boggling and mind-numbing. I don't have any ability to understand that.

This article continues:

Under current regulations, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is limited in its oversight of the marketing and promotion of controlled drugs. However, fundamental changes in the promotion and marketing of controlled drugs by the pharmaceutical industry, and an enhanced capacity of the FDA to regulate and monitor such promotion, can positively affect public health.

What we're talking about here is asking a pharmaceutical industry to change how these drugs are promoted and regulated.

What we have come to is a government that has effectively deregulated, unregulated and dysregulated. It has totally and absolutely gone against regulations by not just promoting a potent opioid but also giving it away for free. Think about it. If I have a product, why would I need to promote it if my objective is simply to give it away? I don't need to promote it if I'm giving it away.

On one side, we have a government in the United States realizing that pharmaceutical industries need to be more regulated in their promotion of opioids. On the other, we have a government north of the border giving away opioids and suggesting that, in the land of unicorns and fairy dust, this is making the opioid crisis—and again I'd use the superlative of crisis—better. It's doing that mind-numbingly, without any ability for me to understand that. When we go on and begin to understand that, we.... Some people say, “This is not related to hydromorphone or fentanyl.”

This article talks about it:

OxyContin’s commercial success did not depend on the merits of the drug compared with other available opioid preparations. The Medical Letter on Drugs and Therapeutics concluded in 2001 [22 years ago] that oxycodone offered no advantage over appropriate doses of other potent opioids.

For people out there to say that hydromorphone is better than fentanyl or oxycodone.... Clearly, we know that, in esteemed, useful and well-read medical journals, this is absolutely total hogwash. There is no difference among these opioids at all. They are all incredibly dangerous. Where does that leave us? That leaves us....

Again, when we look at this, there are some other things here that talk about the relative potencies, but I think I will leave that out. I may come back to it.

I'll continue on:

The promotion and marketing of OxyContin occurred during a recent trend in the liberalization of the use of opioids in the treatment of pain, particularly for chronic non–cancer-related pain. Purdue pursued an “aggressive” campaign to promote the use of opioids in general and OxyContin in particular. In 2001 alone, the company spent $200 million [U.S.] in an array of approaches to market and promote OxyContin.

When you begin to look at that, it becomes very clear. I was a practising physician during those days. I clearly remember many edicts coming out of the Canadian Medical Association, the Canadian College of Family Physicians and—I'm not entirely sure, but probably—the Canadian Pain Society suggesting that someone treating chronic non-cancer pain.... If physicians were not prescribing enough opioids to treat that pain, they were bad doctors.

Do you know what? That was wrong. We know it was wrong, but those of us who are physicians in this room know it happened. We saw those edicts come out of the Canadian Medical Association, the Canadian College of Family Physicians and, as I said, probably the Canadian Pain Society, and we know in retrospect that was wrong. There were changes that came forward. They talked to physicians about how they should prescribe opioids in a more responsible fashion. There were also edicts that subsequently came out talking about how much morphine equivalence of opioid should be prescribed, because we knew these substances were being over-prescribed in a highly regulated fashion already.

Now what do we have? We have a government giving them away for free and continuing to ignore their own advice, which says that these substances need to be prescribed very carefully in small quantities and for short periods of time. We have a government giving them away for free in gigantic quantities for unlimited periods of time. Now, if that is not the exact opposite, I don't know what is.

We have people getting eight-milligram tablets of hydromorphone in quantities of—depending on which article you want to read from Adam Zivo—26, 32 or 34 tablets at a time. Now, if that is not big quantities of high-potency opioids given out in an unrestricted, long-term fashion, I don't know what is. This is the exact opposite of a careful, short-term, low-dose prescribing of opioids, which was suggested to physicians who should be controlling this.

It is mindless, and it continues to this day. Folks around this table then want to say, “Why is it? Why do Conservatives want to talk about opioids? Why do they want to talk incessantly about this?” Do you know what? It's because clearly the Liberal government does not get it. Until we say things over and over again, almost ad nauseam, it clearly appears not to be understood.

I do know that one of my colleagues, my colleague from the Bloc, referenced a motion that has been moved—I don't know whether it's been moved, but it's been tabled—to talk about the opioid experiment. If we had confidence on this side of the chamber we're in this evening that our colleagues would actually do the study, then maybe we wouldn't have to be here tonight talking about this over and over again.

One of my colleagues even deemed this, in this motion, to be an opioid experiment. Do you know what? When you have an experiment that has gone awry and is causing harm, every medical journal out there knows that you stop that experiment early. That's what you do. You don't continue it on. When you realize that people are dying because of the drug that you're using, you don't continue to do the experiment. You stop it. You stop the experiment, but what are the geniuses in the Liberal government doing? They are doubling down.

They are doubling down: “Let's fight the Conservatives on this.” We heard this from my colleague this evening. We have those on the opposite side who think this is a waste of time, that all we're doing is wanting to filibuster to get rid of Bill C-293. Really? There is enough in Bill C-293 that we could have talked about it for 10 more years. It's a terrible piece of legislation. It's utterly ridiculous. It is fraught with incredible jurisdictional contradictions, which my Bloc colleague could have talked about for the next six years, at least, on his own. He brought an expert here to talk about Bill C-293, and he talked about how bad the jurisdictional infractions were with respect to his great province of Quebec. Now it is suddenly only the Conservatives who are trying to get rid of Bill C-293.

I had an opportunity today to meet with the deans of the agricultural and veterinarian schools from across our great country. They have a huge problem with Bill C-293. I read them sections of the bill, and I informed them that we had one meeting here with witnesses on Bill C-293.

They were aghast when they read sections of Bill C-293. When I told them that we had one meeting with witnesses, they couldn't believe it. To think that a bill wants to influence the food that we eat and how it's produced here in this country—we know that farmers are the greatest stewards of farmland and of farm animals in this entire country—then we have the audacity of Liberal members suggesting we are using opioids as a way to filibuster Bill C-293. It's hogwash. It's petty politics—absolutely incredulous.

When I begin to look at the topic at hand, which I will return to, understanding the scourge that opioids have caused and continue to cause for innumerable Canadians, this is absolutely an unacceptable and untenable position.

We know—again, very clearly—that the cost of living crisis this government has created is continuing to cause significant problems for Canadians. I would suggest to you that this opioid crisis is allowing this to be perpetuated. I quote:

From 1996 to 2001, Purdue conducted more than 40 national pain-management and speaker-training conferences at resorts in Florida, Arizona, and California. More than 5000 physicians, pharmacists, and nurses attended these all-expenses-paid symposia, where they were recruited and trained for Purdue's national speaker bureau. It is well documented that this type of pharmaceutical company symposium influences physicians’ prescribing, even though the physicians who attend such symposia believe that such enticements do not alter their prescribing patterns.

Certainly, that's been a huge argument inside the medical community for a long time. Isn't it interesting, though, colleagues? What we're talking about is how a company could influence the prescribing habits of physicians, and what we have now is these drugs being given out for free and Liberal colleagues suggesting that this is an appropriate and acceptable type of behaviour.

As I said, we have a scholarly article talking about this being inappropriate. It's inappropriate to try to influence physicians, who are the appropriate people to write prescriptions. It's inappropriate for them to be influenced to write more prescriptions, but it's not inappropriate for a government to give away the same drugs for free. Wow. Again, I can't even wrap my mind around how that would make any sense at all. It is absolute nonsense. That's what it is.

This article goes on and talks about how they possibly did this, how much money they spent to try to change physicians' minds, how many doctors they convinced to do this and that they gave them fishing hats, stuffed plush toys and CDs. When you look at this now, what are we doing? You don't need to influence doctors, because the Liberal government is giving away opioids for free.

Don't worry, Canadians, because when you're addicted to these opioids that this Liberal-NDP coalition is giving you for free in its crazed experiment, what are they going to do? They're going to kill you.

It's nonsense. It's absolute nonsense to continue to allow the propagation of medical assistance in dying—the euphemism by which it has become known—a procedure that was destined for those who had uncontrolled pain and a reasonable, foreseeable death, to now being for folks who have suffering because of homelessness. Perhaps it's because they can't find a job, they can't afford a house because of the 40-year high inflation of this Liberal government, or they can't afford to feed themselves, put a roof over their heads and heat their homes for winter because they are addicted to opioids. This government is culpable in the creation of this problem.

We are now going to say, “Let's make the problem go away. Let's simply make it go away.” You know what the old saying is: Dead men can't talk. Let's let them go away and not be a problem, because we—not me and not those of us on this side, but this NDP-Liberal coalition—have created a problem that is uncomfortable. I cannot understand why they want to continue to stand up and defend it, and do not have the guts and the good decency to step forward and say, “This is wrong. We made a mistake.”

That's what grown-ups do when they make mistakes. They admit they're wrong and they move on from their mistakes.

This country has trusted them to run this country for eight long and miserable years. What do we have? We have an opioid crisis that is beyond parallel. I'll just go back to that number I talked about earlier. That number went from one person dying every three days to more than 20 people dying every single day in this country due to opioids.

This experiment is being perpetuated by this NDP-Liberal government coalition. They will not back down from their position. No matter what happens, it is very clear they won't back down. When my colleagues begin asking why we need to talk incessantly about a problem, it's because they don't get it. That is why.

We know very clearly that the NDP member of this committee is a full-blown supporter drug decriminalization and the Liberal members have a boss and a PMO bent on safe supply. That makes me able to really understand why they're reluctant to talk about this topic. We look at Mr. Davies' provincial counterparts in the B.C. NDP as prime examples. Tent cities, crime, chaos, drugs and disorder have become the norm under their leadership, where drug overdose is now the leading cause of death for kids between the ages of 10 and 18.

Do you know what, colleagues? I need to read that again: Drug overdose is now the leading cause of death for kids between the ages of 10 and 18. I have three grown children and I have two grandchildren. This scares the daylights out of me because this is not just in Vancouver, Toronto, Montreal, Calgary and Edmonton and every other big city. This is in every town and village across this great country of ours.

Folks, believe it or not, for roughly the past year, the Prime Minister and the leader of the NDP authorized the B.C. government to allow crack, heroine, cocaine and fentanyl around children's playgrounds. They had to then create another edict, suddenly, to say that you can't have drugs around playgrounds and in areas that children frequent.

Are you kidding me? Do we think that it is suddenly an acceptable part of Canadian life to have these drugs around where families and children are all the time? It took the year before an election recently for them to walk this policy back and before they finally prohibited open air drug use around these areas. Colleagues, we know that this happened within the last one month. Wow, you shouldn't use drugs around kids. It's shameful.

You would think that after eight long and miserable years of this Liberal government, there would be a change of heart. Do you know what? I know very clearly that there is not a change of heart. Tonight we saw the incredulous activities of colleagues on the opposite side, with the NDP-Liberal coalition suggesting that this was a simple ploy by Conservatives to get around Bill C-293.

Bill C-293 is a ridiculous piece of legislation that allows this Liberal government to not have an inquiry with respect to their pandemic response. As I said, it creates incredible jurisdictional difficulties related to attempting to force Canadians to change how they farm this great land and how they produce protein for Canadians. It's interesting. I'll go back to the deans of agriculture and veterinary colleges today. They know and they've said out loud that Canada could be the entire breadbasket for the world.

What do we have? We have the NDP-Liberal coalition wanting to stand in the way of that. They say that farmers are mean people and that they're mean to their animals. They are mean. They don't know how to take care of animals. They haven't done it ever. They are bad stewards of the land. They're over-users of fertilizers, and they are unknowledgeable in practices of farming.

Do we really want to believe this? It's shocking. It is incredibly shocking. My friends, this is the track that the NDP-Liberal coalition wants you to go down. This is the track where they want Canadians to begin to believe that farmers are bad people. I know a lot of farmers. They are not bad people. They are perhaps the most optimistic people I have ever met. To be a farmer, you have to be optimistic. Who could possibly think, at the beginning of every growing season, that you're going to have enough rain and enough sun—

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

I think it's pretty clear that we're not going to get to Bill C‑293 today. That's as much a question as it is a statement, Mr. Doherty.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 84 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Health. Today’s meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, pursuant to the Standing Orders.

In accordance with our routine motion, I am informing the committee that all remote participants have completed the required connection tests in advance of the meeting.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Wednesday, February 8, 2023, the committee is resuming consideration of Bill C-293, an act respecting pandemic prevention and preparedness. We are resuming clause-by-clause consideration of this bill. Where we left off was at clause 3 and amendment CPC-4.

Mr. Doherty, please go ahead.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Yes.

I move that Bill C‑293, in clause 3, at lines 25 and 26 on page 2, be amended by deleting the words “public health.”

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

All right, thank you.

The amendment is in order. I believe it has been circulated.

The debate is on the amendment that Bill C-293 in clause 3 be amended by deleting lines 24 to 27 on page 2.

Are there any interventions with respect to the amendment that is before us?

Seeing none, colleagues, are we ready for the question on BQ-1?

[Darren Fisher, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

On a point of order, Mr. Chair, I know you clarified that this was the first amendment, but is this still Bill C-293, an act respecting pandemic prevention?

[Stephen Ellis, Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester, NS]

I have a point of order, Chair. It's directly related to the pandemic. It's the opioid crisis as it relates directly to the pandemic, which I believe is part of the bill that we'll talk about here, which, I might say, is an act respecting pandemic prevention and preparedness.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Chair, I have a point o f order. The current speaker is completely irrelevant to the subject under discussion. We are currently have business before the committee, which is to do a clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-293, an act respecting pandemic prevention and preparedness. He's speaking about the opioid crisis, erroneous—

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 83 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Health. Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, pursuant to the Standing Orders.

In accordance with our routine motion, I'm informing the committee that all remote participants have completed the required connection tests in advance of the meeting. We have Mr. Davies and Ms. May participating remotely.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Wednesday, February 8, 2023, the committee is resuming its consideration of Bill C-293, an act respecting pandemic prevention and preparedness. Today we are going to begin clause-by-clause consideration of this bill.

As you will have been informed by email, we have resources right up until question period, if needed. We will proceed until there is a motion for adjournment, until we get to the end of the agenda or until 1:50, probably, to allow people to get to question period. We'll see how it goes. I just want you to know that the ability to extend is there for us.

I would like to welcome the officials from the Public Health Agency of Canada who are here to answer any substantive questions you have as we go through the amendments. We have Stephen Bent, vice-president, strategic policy branch; Dr. Donald Sheppard, vice-president, infectious diseases and vaccination programs branch; and David Creasey, director general, strategic policy branch. They are here as a resource to us. We also have some folks from legislative services for any technical, legal or procedural questions with regard to the amendments. We are very well supported. Hopefully, that will contribute to our efficiency today.

I'd like to provide you with some instructions and a few comments on how we're going to proceed with clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-293.

As the name indicates, this is an examination of all the clauses in the order in which they appear in the bill. I'll call each clause successively, and each clause is subject to a debate and a vote. If there is an amendment to the clause in question, I will recognize the member proposing it, who may explain it but shouldn't feel compelled to launch into a lengthy explanation—because of the sheer volume. The amendment will then be open for debate.

When no further members wish to intervene, the amendment will be voted on. Amendments will be considered in the order in which they appear in the bill or in the package that each member received from the clerk. Members should note that amendments must be submitted in writing to the clerk of the committee. The ones that were provided in writing to the clerk of the committee to date are reflected in your package.

We'll go as slowly as we need to in order to allow all members to follow the proceedings properly.

Each amendment has been given a number, in the top right corner, to indicate which party submitted it. There is no need for a seconder to move an amendment. Once it's been moved, you will need unanimous consent to withdraw it.

During debate on an amendment, members are permitted to move subamendments. These subamendments must also be submitted in writing. They don't require the approval of the mover of the amendment. Only one subamendment may be considered at a time, and that subamendment cannot be further amended. When a subamendment to an amendment is moved, it is voted on first. Then another subamendment may be moved, or the committee may consider the main amendment and vote on it, which is a procedure you are familiar with from the general moving of motions in this committee.

Mr. Doherty.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Stephen Ellis]

Thank you very much, Mr. Davies.

I will try once again. This time, we are out of time. I want to thank the witnesses for staying later. Those of you not in this time zone, obviously we thank you even more.

That being said, I hope the information was valuable to you all. Hopefully, you enjoyed the discourse we had beforehand.

I have a bit of committee business. This is a reminder to members that the deadline to submit amendments to Bill C‑293 is this coming Friday at noon.

In our next meeting, on Monday, we'll be doing clause-by-clause consideration of this bill, Bill C‑293.

Thank you all for indulging the newness of this chairmanship to me.

Also, on behalf of this committee, I would like to wish our usual chair, Mr. Casey, Godspeed in what he is going through at the current time.

Is it the will of the committee to adjourn?

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

The Standing Committee on Health sat through the entire pandemic. It's one of the only committees to have done so, and there are three of us MPs here who lived through the pandemic on the committee without ever looking to blame anyone. Instead, we looked for solutions.

I believe that Bill C‑293 puts the cart before the horse and that we must first know what happened before claiming to have solutions. For example, how can we explain that the global public health information network could have been so ineffective, failing to raise the red flag in time and allow personal protective equipment to be sent to China, when our own stockpile was empty? The fact that in Quebec our CHSLDs, our long term care centres, ran out of masks had consequences.

Getting the answer to this question seems important to me, and I don't think an advisory committee could get to the bottom of the issue. Without looking for culprits, we first need to know what we've done, what we could do differently, and then propose a plan of action. A law won't fix this; we already have everything we need to do so.

Do you have any comments on the matter, Dr. Barrett?

[Patrick Taillon]

No, this is not an investigation. Bill C‑293 is forward-looking. Unfortunately, I'm afraid it's a diversion to avoid making an assessment that would be desirable. Ultimately, it's up to each administration to do its own assessment.

I think the agency could, on its own initiative, learn from experiences it has had in recent years. I'm afraid that by trying to anticipate a future crisis, we're sparing ourselves the critical examination that should be done to answer questions that are nonetheless quite simple. For example, why was the federal government so slow to manage borders? Why was it so slow to remove border obstacles? Why was it so difficult for it to manage vaccine supplies? These are matters for which the federal government is directly responsible. These are the questions we need to prioritize.

[Robert Gordon Kitchen, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate the opportunity.

Again, thank you to the witnesses staying a little extra longer with us.

As I'm sure you're well aware, the BMJ has published a number of articles on Canada's response to the virus.

One of the quotes I will read to you states, “A national inquiry in 2023 is critical. Consistent with reports both before and after this pandemic, we call for a culture of data sharing that enables diverse use by a broader range of users.”

I'll start with you, Dr. Taillon.

Do you feel that this is a national inquiry that Bill C-293 would provide?

[Shuv Majumdar, Conservative, Calgary Heritage, AB]

Thank you very much.

At the onset of the pandemic, the Trudeau government discovered it had dismantled a critical and successful early warning system. When the world began border closures to protect citizens, the “do as I say, not as I do” health minister Hajdu held to an ideology decrying conspiracy theories, accusing critics of being racist and parroting the People's Republic of China talking points and outsourcing critical national interest decisions to a World Health Organization bent on destroying its own credibility.

Bill C-293 is not a pandemic inquiry. It barely begins to assess pandemic prevention and it begs that we pay better attention to what decisions were made in that time.

Dr. Barrett, in the past you've stated that you're a fan of keeping masks on faces and have defended mandates on social media.

Let's see how that played out. The Alberta Medical Association survey cites 77% of parents who have reported that the mental health of their children aged 15 and over is worse than before the COVID-19 pandemic. According to the Canadian Institute for Health Information, during the first year of the pandemic, almost 25% of hospitalizations for children and youth were mental health-related.

Let me ask you a question. These mandates destroyed the mental health of Albertans and Canadians, and destroyed small businesses and destroyed the livelihoods of thousands of people who are now afflicted by an opioid crisis. Do you still stand by your comments today?

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

I'd like to talk about animal protection.

A brief sent to us by the Chicken Farmers of Canada criticizes Bill C‑293, which aims to prevent and prepare for pandemics. In it they say that its content is not limited to pandemic preparedness, but includes a negative and biased perspective on poultry farming.

The producers' concerns about Bill C‑293 focus on the type of language used to describe factory farming. The focus is on agriculture in the context of antimicrobial resistance, rather than using the “One Health” approach, and the overlapping jurisdiction of provincial governments in agricultural production.

Further on, they tell us about their strategy on the responsible use of antimicrobials approved by Health Canada's Veterinary Drugs Directorate.

What do you think of this critique of the bill?

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Thank you.

To World Animal Protection, in your submission to the committee, you wrote that World Animal Protection supports Bill C-293 because it takes a “one-health” approach to pandemic prevention, requiring government to address the underlying causes of pandemics.

What is the “one-health” approach, and how does it relate to both animal protection and pandemic prevention?

[Patrick Taillon]

Yes.

If Bill C‑293 is all about planning and thinking, I'd say those are already powers amply available to the federal bureaucracy. So there's no need to legislate. All this is already possible and permitted. Otherwise, we're talking about giving the government coercive powers to force things through, particularly with regard to harmonization with the provinces and attempts to standardize. If that's the case, I think we're putting our energies in the wrong places.

When I heard Dr. Ross, with respect, talk about a registry for the training of health care personnel, I thought to myself that we were then touching on the field of education, which is a provincial jurisdiction. It's normal that at the federal level, we don't have this information, because it doesn't fall under federal jurisdiction. Professional corporations, which determine who can become a doctor or nurse, fall under provincial jurisdiction, as does hospital management.

The challenge in the next crisis—it may be opioids, it may be an environmental crisis, it may be something else—would be for everyone to get their responsibilities right. The federal government has had its shortcomings, such as border management during the pandemic, which wasn't always perfect. There was also the management of vaccine supplies, which wasn't always perfect either.

So we mustn't let Bill C‑293 become an excuse to avoid doing the imperative assessment of how Ottawa has discharged its responsibilities. It's as if we were in primary school, with good students and mediocre students, and the worst student in the class wanted to teach the other students how to study.

That's not how things works. Everyone needs to do their homework on their own; the federal government has lessons to learn from the last crisis in its own areas of jurisdiction if it wants to better exercise its powers without trying to take control, coordinate everything, and harmonize what doesn't fall under its responsibilities.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I thank the witnesses for their patience and apologize for the digression. It's not that the subject isn't serious and important, but I'd like to reassure you and tell you that, when the Standing Committee on Health receives witnesses, it usually conducts at least one round of questions before moving on to another subject, when the subject is important. We're going to do that now, but I wanted to apologize anyway. This is not the way the committee usually operates. I thought the motion would have been tabled after at least a first round of questions.

So, I return to Mr. Taillon.

I'd like to go back a bit, because over time, we may have lost a bit of the essence of your testimony.

First, you said that Bill C‑293 was unnecessary insofar as you wondered whether legislation was really needed to put forward an action plan. On the other hand, are we to believe that the authorities currently involved are not already developing a plan and addressing the shortcomings of the pandemic?

Did I understand you correctly in this respect?

[Darren Fisher, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

This is an incredibly important topic to talk about. As a committee, we're tasked with legislation. The legislation we are tasked with tonight on a tight timeline is Bill C-293.

Dr. Ross said it's important to hear from people on the front line. Dr. Barrett is famous for saying, “health without knowledge doesn't happen.”

With respect for our witnesses, I move to adjourn debate.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Stephen Ellis]

Very good. Thank you for clarifying that, Mr. Fisher.

I will echo those comments; I'm sorry to the witnesses. Obviously this is committee business that is not related to Bill C-293. I am unsure as to how long this may take. I would ask my honourable colleagues to consider thinking about releasing the witnesses. This may take some time.

I'm at the will of the committee, but I would suggest to my honourable colleagues that, if it is your desire to release the witnesses and apologize to them, I'd be absolutely happy to do that. I'll leave it to the will of the committee.

[Dr. Kathleen Ross, President, Canadian Medical Association]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My name is Dr. Kathleen Ross. I'm joining you from the traditional territories of the indigenous people of Treaty No. 7 and the Métis Nation of Alberta Region 3. We acknowledge and respect the many first nations, Métis and Inuit who have lived in and cared for these lands for generations.

I am a family doctor working in British Columbia. As president of the Canadian Medical Association, I represent the voices of the country's physicians and medical learners, those they care for and those who don't have access to care.

As the committee studies Bill C-293, an act respecting pandemic prevention and preparedness, it's important to hear from those who have been on the front lines since long before COVID-19. Already caring for patients in a broken system, health care workers were submerged under deeper backlogs and even greater system impacts with each subsequent wave. Canada's response to COVID-19 must inform our plans for future pandemic preparedness and prevention strategies. Appropriate planning to support our health workforce at the outset remains critical to keeping Canada safe.

The spirit of Bill C-293 is to improve the way we prepare for the next pandemic. We welcome the proposed steps towards collaboration across jurisdictions and are pleased to see an emphasis on building primary care capacity. The language that speaks to improving working conditions for essential workers while increasing the ability of health care workers to perform their duties in a scenario of increased demands is promising. However, the stark truth is that we must focus on alleviating the significant impact the pandemic continues to have on the health workforce today. Creating a safe, robust and healthy workforce can't wait.

The heroic efforts of our health workers continue, and we are at record-high levels of burnout and exhaustion. My colleagues are demoralized and looking to exit the profession. We hope the impact on the health and wellness of health professionals will be a big part of any review and an even bigger piece of planning.

Rebuilding the trust of our health workers and Canadians is critical to pandemic preparedness. Mr. Chair, the announcement of increased health funding earlier this year was welcomed. That spending must be targeted and invested in areas that truly bolster health care systems. Canadian physicians must be able to work where the needs are greatest.

As an example, in April 2021, COVID-19 cases were surging in central Canada and many communities were pushed beyond their resources. A cadre of health care workers, including physicians from Newfoundland and Labrador, assembled quickly to help struggling communities 3,000 kilometres away. That deployment necessitated a swift and temporary lifting of the usual provincial licensing restrictions, allowing physicians to get an Ontario licence within one week.

Look at the potential of that model: A single licensing system implemented across the country can alleviate the pressure on medical workforces, serve patients in rural and remote communities, provide virtual care across provincial and territorial borders, and provide more timely access. This is critical in preparing for future pandemics. Pan-Canadian licensure can be implemented across the country, which provincial and territorial health ministers committed to last week in P.E.I. This is the time to deliver on our promise to increase access to family doctors and primary care. Scaling up collaborative, interprofessional care is central to increasing access and limiting the spread of future disease.

Physicians are overwhelmed by unnecessary administration, a lack of interoperability, third-party and federal forms, and managing large volumes of data that are often incomplete. Admin burden amounts to 18.5 million hours per year. Those hours could be transferred to better patient care and physicians' own wellness—hours we cannot afford to lose in the surge of a pandemic.

We must plan for what our health workforce may face. Gaps in the availability of timely health data are critical. We need to be able to harness data in order to contribute to the development of an integrated pan-Canadian health human resources plan. Data is necessary to understand the breadth of the myriad of health care challenges we face and to chart a sustainable course for the future. Without a transparent and accountable blueprint, we are unlikely to reach consensus on our destination.

Mr. Chair, I thank you for the committee's time today.

I'll welcome any questions the members of the committee might have.

[Melissa Matlow, Campaign Director, World Animal Protection]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and committee members for the invitation to testify on Bill C-293.

I'm the campaign director at World Animal Protection. We're an international animal welfare charity with offices in 12 countries.

We conduct a lot of research on the intersectionality of animal health and welfare, environmental sustainability and human health. That research then informs our policy recommendations that we bring. Those intersections really are what “one health" is all about.

We have general consultative status with the United Nations. We have a formal working relationship with the World Organization for Animal Health and we're members of the National Farm Animal Care Council.

Joining with me today is Michèle Hamers, our wildlife campaign manager, who has an M.Sc. in animal biology and is co-author of the first published article on Canada's wildlife trade, specifically on the potential for disease risk and the lack of data and monitoring for it.

You may be wondering why an animal welfare group wants to testify on this bill. Seventy-five per cent of new and emerging infectious diseases originate in animals, principally from wildlife. It is our mistreatment of animals and exploitation of nature that is driving the frequency and severity of diseases, and it's not just us who are saying that. It is repeatedly cited in various UN reports like the report by the United Nations Environment Programme on pandemics, or the report by IPBES on pandemics, with regard to Mpox, Ebola, SARS, MERS, West Nile virus, Nipah, Zika, COVID-19.

It is widely acknowledged that a wildlife market played a significant role in the COVID-19 pandemic, whether it was originating the origins of the virus or amplifying it. These markets typically hold a variety of different animal species that wouldn't normally encounter each other in the wild. They are kept in cramped, stressful and often unsanitary conditions. These are called hotbeds for emerging diseases. When animals are stressed they become more vulnerable to infections and they become more infectious. That is why this is very much an animal welfare problem at the core.

We strongly support this bill because it takes a “one-health" approach and puts emphasis on prevention, it identifies the top pandemic drivers and requires government to address those drivers and mitigate those risks.

So often prevention is viewed as increasing surveillance and monitoring, but surveillance cannot detect asymptomatic animals that carry disease, nor does it prevent pathogen mutation and emergence. Scientists have warned that we are entering a pandemic era. If we truly want to reverse course, we must include pre-outbreak measures to prevent spillover at the human-animal-environment interface.

To quote from the IPBES report, “Without preventative strategies, pandemics will emerge more often, spread more rapidly, kill more people and affect the global economy with more devastating impact than ever before.”

Tackling the root causes of spillover is a fraction of the cost of responding to a pandemic. One study found that halting deforestation and regulating the wildlife trade could cost as little as 2% of the economic cost of responding to the COVID-19 pandemic.

It is also critically important that this bill mentions well-known pandemic drivers. These are already identified in the scientific literature by credible authorities and global agreements that Canada has committed to.

These drivers include the illegal and under-regulated legal wildlife trade, which is growing in volume, live animal markets, intensive farming methods, and land use changes. These have been identified, again, in the UNEP report and the IPBES report, which I believe are available to you.

The current draft of the World Health Organization's international pandemic instrument also mentions the need to address disease drivers including, but not limited to, climate change, land use change, the wildlife trade, desertification and antimicrobial resistance. Bill C-293 would help Canada fulfill its obligations to this new global agreement.

The World Health Organization refers to the rise in antimicrobial resistance as the silent pandemic and one of the biggest public health concerns of the 21st century. This relates back to animal welfare because three-quarters of all antimicrobials used in Canada and around the world are given to farm animals. For decades, these preventative antibiotics have been given in the absence of clinical disease to stop stressed animals from getting sick and to facilitate intensive farming methods.

Thank you for your time.

[Patrick Taillon, Professor and Associate Director of the Centre for Constitutional and Administrative Law Studies, Faculty of Law, Université Laval, As an Individual]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would first like to thank the members of the committee for this invitation to testify about Bill C‑293.

Right from the outset, I'd like to share three criticisms of the bill.

First, it's an unnecessary bill in many ways; second, it distracts us from the real issue; and third, it contravenes the principle of federalism and provincial jurisdiction in the health field.

First of all, it is unnecessary, to some extent, because it aims to set up a preventive bureaucracy. Cabinet members, along with senior federal government officials, already have all the latitude they need to assess, forecast and anticipate the next crisis. It's already their role to do so. They don't need legislation to do it. It's already part of their job description.

Next, it's a bill that distracts us from the real issue, which is the need to take stock of federal action during the last pandemic. It seeks to anticipate the next crisis on all fronts, including those outside federal jurisdiction, rather than focusing on the important issues. Why was the federal government so slow to shoulder its responsibilities during the COVID-19 crisis? Why was it so slow to manage border controls, which are its responsibility? Why was border quarantine so slow to be established? Why did cities like Montreal have to try to make up for the federal government's shortcomings? Why were the maritime provinces forced to create borders within Canada to compensate for federal inaction? Why was the slowness in establishing rules and procedures to manage the crisis accompanied by a delay in withdrawing the measures at the end of the crisis? Why was the federal government always two or three steps behind?

The bill's ambition to coordinate everything is very unhealthy. It's a distraction. It deprives the federal government and its administration of a critical examination of its own action. Above all, the bill clashes with federalism and the provinces' common law jurisdiction in health matters. It is the manifestation of a centralizing intention, of the idea that everything would be better managed if it were coordinated from above. This standardizing ambition is clearly evident. It is evident, for example, in paragraph 4(2)(c), which states that care must be taken, with the provincial governments, to “align approaches and address any jurisdictional challenges [...].”

“Align” means everyone doing the same things, which is a euphemism for saying that we're really trying to standardize everything. To “standardize” is to deprive ourselves of the contribution of grass-roots initiatives, and of the freedom and autonomy that have made it possible for certain provinces within the federation to do well, and for others to imitate them. If we centralize and standardize everything, that means that, in the next crisis, the mistakes we make at the top will be made uniformly across Canada. This is the opposite of the spirit of autonomy and freedom that federalism implies.

The same section also mentions “the collection and sharing of data.” Once again, this is a euphemism for a form of accountability in which the provinces are required to provide information in areas where they are nonetheless fully autonomous.

In closing, let me say that we shouldn't be naive. If the prevention and coordination work proposed in the bill is not really about decision-making, in that case we don't really need a bill, since the administration already has all the freedom to do the necessary reflection and coordination work. If, on the other hand, we're really looking to delegate new powers to the administration in order to coordinate and harmonize some things with the provinces, that means we're really looking to distort Canadian federalism, i.e., a federalism in which the bulk of responsibility for health care lies with the provinces.

Thank you.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Stephen Ellis]

Good evening, everyone. I call the meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 82 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Health. Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, pursuant to the Standing Orders.

I would like to make a few comments for the benefit of witnesses and members.

Please wait until I recognize you by name before speaking. For those participating by video conference, click on the microphone icon to activate your mike, and please mute yourself when you're not speaking.

With regard to interpretation, for those on Zoom you have the choice at the bottom of your screen of the floor, English or French. Those in the room can use the earpiece and select the desired channel.

I will remind you that all comments should be addressed through the chair—that would be me. Additionally, screenshots or taking photos of your screen are not permitted.

In accordance with our routine motion, I am informing the committee that all remote participants have completed the required connection tests in advance of the meeting.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Wednesday, February 8, 2023, the committee is resuming its study of Bill C-293, an act respecting pandemic prevention and preparedness.

I would like to welcome our panel of witnesses. Appearing as individuals and by video conference, we have Dr. Lisa Barrett, physician-researcher; and Patrick Taillon, professor and associate director of the Centre for Constitutional and Administrative Law Studies, faculty of law, Université Laval. Representing the Canadian Medical Association, we have Dr. Kathleen Ross, president, by video conference; and representing World Animal Protection, we have Melissa Matlow, campaign director; and Michèle Hamers, wildlife campaign manager.

Thank you for taking the time to appear today. You will each have up to five minutes for your opening statement. The order we will use will be Dr. Barrett, Mr. Taillon, Dr. Ross....

I'm unsure, so could you clarify, Ms. Matlow, whether you will do the entire five minutes? Very well.

I will remind you when you have one minute left. We're going to keep to a schedule here this evening.

That being said, thank you all for being here, and let's get the show on the road.

We'll start with Dr. Barrett.

Thank you.

Health

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

It being 3:26 p.m., pursuant to order made earlier today, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion to concur in the 14th report of the Standing Committee on Health concerning an extension to consider Bill C-293.

Call in the members.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 14th report of the Standing Committee on Health, in relation to Bill C-293, an act respecting pandemic prevention and preparedness.

The committee has studied the bill and, pursuant to Standing Order 97.1(1), humbly requests a 30-day extension to consider it.

[Nathaniel Erskine-Smith, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

Thanks, Sean.

Thanks to everyone for the time today. I have to admit that it's a bit odd to be the one presenting instead of the one asking questions, so bear with me.

This bill is really straightforward in many respects. We've all just lived through a devastating pandemic. It upended our lives in so many different ways. It has taken lives. It has damaged businesses. It has undermined livelihoods. It has upset schooling, and on and on and on.

We don't want to live through another one. There are a couple of things we need to do. One is to take every step we can to reduce the risk of a future pandemic, and there are steps we can take, working here domestically and working with international partners. We need to make sure that, when the next one comes, we are the best prepared for it.

I don't propose that I've managed to include every single thing that should be included in this piece of legislation, but the architecture is there. It's an accountability architecture that would require the government every three years—and you could consider changing it to five, but it would be on a regular basis—to say, “Here is our pandemic prevention and preparedness plan” and table it in Parliament. Parliamentarians from all parties, working with experts, could then hold the government to account on its plan.

Is enough being done? Can we take additional steps to reduce risk? What are other countries doing that we aren't doing? What's in their plan that isn't in ours?

It is essential that we have that ongoing accountability, because if you look at the experience with SARS, there was a review, there was a report and there were recommendations. Some were even acted on, but not all were. There wasn't a recurring accountability so it fell off the table. When we came to the COVID pandemic, we weren't as prepared as we ought to have been. Frankly, we didn't take the steps we could have taken to prevent COVID in the first place.

The architecture is there. I almost called it the “one health bill”. It's the pandemic prevention and preparedness act. I almost called it the one health bill because on the prevention side—and we already have a one health framework at Health Canada, working with agriculture—it is incredibly important that we keep in mind, we take to heart and we keep in this bill this idea. It's grounded in science, grounded in international bodies and grounded in science here in Canada that animal health, environmental health and human health are interconnected ideas.

If we don't have a clear-eyed focus on environmental health, that can impact animal health, which can then impact human health. It's especially important when you consider the particular risk posed by zoonosis. If you have other experts who testify in the course of these proceedings on Bill C-293, you will hear over and over again that the core primary risk of another pandemic is a zoonotic disease and spillover risk from animals.

That's on the prevention and one health side.

At a high level, I want to say there is a lot in this bill. I consulted with the United Nations Environment Programme's report about preventing future pandemics. I consulted with the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services' report about preventing future pandemics, including consulting with a Canadian expert involved in that report. I consulted with the independent panel, which has written reports on pandemic prevention and preparedness and worked directly with the researchers who wrote and put those reports together, and consulted with a range of other experts.

That's how this bill came to be.

Again, I don't propose that it's perfect, and I would expect amendments are going to be forthcoming. I want to say that amendments should be forthcoming.

For one, I know the review section in the bill has caused some consternation, because there is some question about whether it should be independent. My view has generally been that there should be some more fulsome, searching independent review. This review is more focused on informing the plan, but I don't want to get into the politics of it. I understand there's an agreement to remove that section of the bill, and I'm comfortable with that. That seems right by me in terms of the conversations that have been had.

The second piece is on specific language in the bill. I would say, in everything that you do, improve it, take certain language out if you don't like it and add other language in if there's language missing. At all times, my ask, and it's how I came to this legislation at all times, is to make sure that everything we do is going to put in place an architecture whereby a future government—this government, the next government and the government 20 or 50 years from now—is going to be required to turn its mind to certain issues that are core to pandemic prevention and preparedness, and follow the science.

I know I've received some questions. I engaged with the Ontario Federation of Agriculture, for example, on the agriculture amendments. They said it could perhaps be even tighter and more specific with the language. That's fair.

I would encourage all of you, as you look at amending the legislation—I know amendments will be warranted—to make sure that we, at all times, focus on what is best in the science when it comes to prevention and preparedness.

I appreciate the time, Sean.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 62 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Health.

Today, we will consider Bill C-293 during the first hour, before proceeding to committee business in camera during the second hour.

In accordance with our routine motion, I'm informing the committee that all remote participants, specifically Mr. Erskine-Smith, have completed the required connection tests in advance of the meeting.

It's now my pleasure to welcome Mr. Nathaniel Erskine-Smith, member of Parliament for Beaches—East York, who is joining us today via video conference to speak to Bill C-293, an act respecting pandemic prevention and preparedness.

Nathaniel, I know you have a few things going on in your life. It's very good to have you here with us. You know the drill.

You have five minutes for your opening statement. The floor is yours.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Dr. Georgiades, I'm really glad we gave the extra 30 seconds. That was an excellent note on which to finish. Thank you so much for that.

Thank you, to all of our witnesses, for sharing your expertise and experiences on the front line. It will be of significant value to the committee.

There are a couple of administrative matters that I need to raise with committee members.

Witnesses, you are welcome to stay, but you're free to leave. We're very grateful to you for your attendance today.

I have three things to raise with you, colleagues. I know Mr. van Koeverden has something.

First of all, yesterday another private member's bill, Bill C-293, was referred to us. I know that our plan is to complete the work on this study before we consider whether we're going to private member's bills, but just so you know, we now have three that are waiting.

The second thing is, during the meeting today I received a notice from the whip that the Board of Internal Economy is going to be meeting on February 16, which will bump our committee out of its time slot. How that's going to be resolved is not yet determined, but I just wanted to let you know that there may be a problem with the meeting on February 16. We'll work on it between now and then. That's just for awareness.

Mr. van Koeverden, you had something.

Pandemic Prevention and Preparedness Act

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

Pursuant to order made on Thursday, June 23, 2022, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at second reading stage of Bill C-293 under Private Members' Business.

The House resumed from February 6 consideration of the motion that Bill C-293, An Act respecting pandemic prevention and preparedness, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Nathaniel Erskine-Smith, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

Madam Speaker, I ask everyone to consider what the role of a member of Parliament is with respect to private members' business. I am not a member of the government. This is a private member's bill. For all of us across party lines who have introduced private members' bills, we know how much work goes in to them, the guidance we receive as a parliamentarians and the convention, as it were, if we respect it.

I heard my colleague for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan say that, in principle, he agrees. I heard the Bloc say that the intent is laudable. I heard NDP colleagues say that they agree with the general purpose of a pandemic prevention and preparedness strategy, but that it needs to be an independent review.

If one agrees in principle with a bill, and if one takes one's role seriously, not as a cabinet minister who is seized with government legislation but as a member of Parliament considering backbencher and private members' business, one should send to committee the legislation we agree with in principle and we could work out the details.

I am certainly open to amending the legislation based on the details, but surely we should not kill a bill at second reading that has merit in principle. We have just lived through our most serious health crisis ever, and here is a bill to make sure we are more prepared next time.

The conversation for today is that it sounds great, but we are going to kill it right now before we have experts, provincial ministers and PHAC attend committee. We do not actually want to think about this issue again. We just want to rail in a political way about an independent review.

Therefore, let me turn to the need for an independent review. Of course there should be an independent review. The NDP referenced SARS, and good on its members for referencing the independent SARS Commission led by then Justice Campbell. There was also a national advisory committee, which was a separate dual-track process under Health Canada, led by David Naylor. There were recommendations from that national advisory committee that were implemented ultimately by the government. That is why we have the Public Health Agency of Canada.

Forgive me if I am astounded at the lack of history from my colleagues who say we need some independent review, and therefore we need to kill this piece of legislation. No, we need both. In this particular instance, the core accountability to a law like this is not in the review function. That is laughable. The core accountability in this bill, Bill C-293, is parliamentary accountability. The government should be accountable to us as Parliament with respect to its pandemic prevention and preparedness efforts.

The member for Port Moody—Coquitlam said that we need more emphasis on nurses. Guess what. This bill would require that the government table, every three years, to us in Parliament, a pandemic prevention preparedness plan that speaks to supporting local public health and primary care capacity building. Yes, it speaks to nurses. It also speaks to the working conditions of essential workers across all sectors.

The government should be creating these pandemic prevention preparedness strategies and then tabling those strategies to us in Parliament. If we kill this bill, yes, it means we could rail about an independent review. However, it functionally means that it would be this government and future governments that would create those strategies, and they would not be accountable to Parliament for those strategies.

For the same reason, we need climate accountability legislation. It does not mean some independent review of how climate change is occurring. It means that the government is accountable to Parliament for its climate action plan. Similarly, for the accountability mechanism in this bill, the government is accountable to us for its prevention and preparedness strategies.

I heard my colleague from Regina—Lewvan read out the “one health” approach and say that maybe it was a good idea but it sounded too international for him. We literally have a one health approach in Health Canada to prevent antimicrobial resistance.

If people are going to vote against this bill, please, just read it first. Do not read it for the first time in Parliament, while railing against it. We need a pandemic prevention preparedness plan, full stop. We need accountability to Parliament, full stop. All members know I have supported not only Conservative bills but also NDP bills to get to committee. My instinct and my role in this place, and I hope members see their role in the same way, is to get bills that we agree with in principle to committee so we can improve them.

Thanks for the time. I hope we all change our minds.

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

Madam Speaker, 35 months ago, almost to the day, everything came to a halt in Canada and around the world. It was a stressful time that I sincerely hope we will never experience again. That said, it makes sense to be rational without being alarmist: Epidemics and pandemics are bound to happen more frequently, for a variety of reasons.

Today we are considering Bill C-293, which seeks to help the country prevent and prepare for future pandemics. When I saw it appear on the Order Paper, I must admit that, for a moment, I was dismayed.

I would like to take my colleagues back to 2020 to explain why I was dismayed. In 2020, when the pandemic hit, I reassured myself and my family by saying that epidemiologists had been warning governments everywhere that the next big post-SARS pandemic was bound to be a coronavirus pandemic.

I want to take a small detour for a moment. Epidemiologists suspected a coronavirus pandemic because, thanks to SARS, they realized that we did not know much about these viruses. They knew that we were not necessarily prepared to deal with coronaviruses, since we knew so little about them. This is not a conspiracy, just a simple logical analysis. That is all I am going to say about that.

Given that we had been on alert since the SARS crisis and given that we had a bit of a trial run with H1N1 in 2007-08, I figured that we were ready to handle the pandemic and that Canada and the provinces were properly equipped.

That was not the case, though. Masks were expired. There were no respirators. Investments were made in test cubes that cost $8,000 apiece but never amounted to anything. The government had trouble finding reliable suppliers. They had to play catch-up and on and on. I will not go over everything that happened over the past three years.

To err is human. Everyone is allowed to make mistakes. Planning something and making a mistake is one thing. Not planning, flying blind, awarding contracts that turn out to be overpriced to unknown parties that subcontract the work to a Liberal member who very recently gave up his seat? That is not human error. That is a boondoggle.

Whenever I think about all that, it reminds me of a scene in a movie where a guy is trying to make a hasty exit while getting dressed because his lover's husband has just come home. He would never have found himself in such an awkward position had he had the sense not to pursue another man's wife in the first place.

There is a reason I am reminding my colleagues how surprised I am to see the lack of preparation in Canada and around the world, despite more than 15 years of warnings. This is directly related to Bill C-293, which shows that the government was not adequately prepared. If the mechanisms had already been in place—and they actually were in place, but I will come back to that—would new legislation have been needed? The answer is no. We would have simply needed to adapt existing legislation, policies, regulations and working methods.

Once the shock of all this passes, we still need to read the bill. The preamble sets the stage. As the first paragraph indicates, it costs a lot less to prevent than to cure. I will not dwell on that.

The second paragraph states that “Parliament is committed to making efforts to prevent the risk of and prepare for future pandemics”. Should this not have been started back in 2003 or 2004, by any chance, after SARS? Why did Jean Chrétien, then Paul Martin and then Stephen Harper do nothing when they were in power?

Prevention involves a lot of measures, particularly environmental and health measures. The more money is invested in forms of energy that produce greenhouse gases, the more temperatures rise. This causes icebergs and the permafrost to melt, releasing viruses and bacteria. Work on pandemic prevention should have started a long time ago, but it is never too late to do the right thing.

In health, the individual behind the cuts in transfers to Quebec, the provinces and the territories was Jean Chrétien. If, starting in 2003-04, health transfers had been restored to the levels intended by the Constitution, the pandemic's impact on our health networks would have been far less severe.

Once again, it is never too late to do the right thing. There is a meeting coming up. I hope the outcome will be that the federal government is forced to abide by its own Constitution.

Let us come back to the bill's preamble. The third paragraph sets out a list of viruses and diseases that have affected the world, though they may not necessarily have hit Canada that hard.

The fourth and fifth paragraphs state that a multisectoral and multidisciplinary collaborative approach is central to taking preventive action. I agree with that. With regard to collaboration, we need only think of the constitutional agreements on health transfers. Had those agreements been respected starting in 2003-04, then the federal government would not have had to give Quebec and the provinces and territories so much money during the pandemic to support their respective health care systems, because they would have been resilient enough to deal with the situation. When a person, business, non-profit organization or government has to do without up to 32% of their budget for 30 years, it leaves a mark. It makes it more difficult to act in a time of crisis.

Before my colleagues tell me off by talking about how much money the government gave the provinces and territories during the pandemic, I would like to remind them that it is part of the federal government's constitutional role to provide help when a major crisis occurs. Canada does not have a constitutional agreement with the other countries in the world, but it gives them money, as well as help and services on the ground. We do have constitutional agreements, so it is not fair to tell us off when we are pointing out needs that are there.

To sum up, Canada is responsible for its own lack of pandemic preparedness. The Global Public Health Intelligence Network alert system was deactivated in 2019. The national emergency strategic stockpile was so grossly mismanaged that millions of masks that hospitals desperately needed had to be thrown out because they were expired. I could also cite the chaotic management of the borders and quarantines and our pharmaceutical manufacturing capacity, which has been put in jeopardy over the past few decades.

Some may be wondering if I can think of anything good the government has done. Once it had made up for earlier mistakes and its lack of planning and prevention, the situation did end up improving. I commend the unparalleled work done by the then minister of public services and procurement and her team, who worked around the clock.

The way the pandemic was managed needs to be analyzed honestly and calmly. Complete neutrality is absolutely necessary to shed light on what the public and the health care system went through. Let us take this out of the hands of the politicians who were at the centre of the storm.

The bill is certainly interesting. It calls for an advisory committee to study the “before” and “during” and make recommendations, yet the bill already includes a whole list of things that a plan must include. What is the point of recommendations if the plan's contents have already been decided? We need to take the politics out of it.

I applaud the goodwill of my colleague from Beaches—East York. I consider prevention to be a much easier remedy to swallow than treatment. However, in order to ensure that this remedy is non-partisan, it is imperative that it be created outside this political arena. That is why we need an independent public inquiry. Only an independent public inquiry can ensure an unbiased, non-partisan analysis. Complete neutrality is absolutely necessary to shed light on what the public and the health care system went through. Let us take this out of the hands of the politicians who were at the centre of the storm.

I would like to hear what the member for Beaches—East York has to say on his right of reply.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

I had a slogan suggestion for his leadership campaign as well. It was “Get high in the polls”, but anyway, I will carry on with my remarks here. I wish my friend well, but I will not be supporting his bill.

This bill is about a review of our pandemic preparedness and comes out of the experience of the COVID-19 pandemic, which, it is sort of cliche to say but it is obvious, is the seminal event in all of our lives that has had so many dramatic consequences. There are the health consequences for so many people, but also the social and cultural consequences of the pandemic that have deeply shaped us and will continue to shape us. Most of those consequences, quite frankly, are negative and require a reaction to the social and cultural damage that has been wrought as a result of the divisions that have been created through this pandemic, some of them maybe just incidental or unintended, but some of them very much intentionally sown.

It is right that we, as politicians, as leaders but also as a society in general, should be evaluating and reviewing the effects of the pandemic and asking what happened here, how we got some things so badly wrong, what were the things that we got right, and how we could approach future pandemics in a better way. In principle, I agree with the idea of having a postpandemic review and having in place provisions to ensure that there is a plan for future pandemics. I do not regard this bill, sadly, as a serious approach to those things.

I will just mention some aspects of this. One is that Liberals love to put forward new advisory councils appointed by government ministers. We saw this with their child care bill, Bill C-35. We are seeing this again with Bill C-293, where they are saying they have this issue they have to think about and therefore they are going to have an advisory council that is going to be responsible for advising the government about it. The minister responsible for that area is going to appoint the advisory council. By the way, the advisory council should be, in certain respects, diverse, reflective of different kinds of backgrounds, experiences and so forth.

However, what guarantees diversity of thought in an advisory mechanism is diversity in the appointment process, that is, bringing in multiple voices in determining who are the right people to sit on this advisory council. If a minister chooses who sits on the advisory council, then obviously they are going to be tempted to appoint people who share their pre-existing philosophy and who are not necessarily going to dig into providing the kind of criticism that is required of the government's approach.

Various members have put forward proposals in terms of the kind of broad-based, genuinely democratic postpandemic review that we would need to have. Many of those conversations are already going on. There should be a mechanism within the government to have this kind of review. I know various provinces are looking at this already. There should be international mechanisms around pandemic review. All these things are important, but those review processes should not be a top-down, controlled whitewash. They should be authentically empowered to hold governments accountable, to ask whether we got some big things wrong in the context of the pandemic, why we got them wrong, and how we could ensure we fix those issues.

In the time I have left, let me highlight some of the things I think we got badly wrong about the pandemic, and some of the ways we need to think about how we go forward.

There were a lot of things that we did not know about COVID-19 when it started. Let us acknowledge that it was probably inevitable that we were going to get some things wrong, but at a basic level we should have had the stockpile of PPE that was required. This was coming out of past pandemics, so that people could eventually come to conclusions such as to what degree certain kinds of masks limit, or not, the spread of the virus. At the very beginning, before we knew anything, it would have been a good kind of default to say, let us make sure that we have protective equipment in place and that we have that stockpile available so that it could be available to people.

It was out of the discussion after the SARS pandemic a couple of decades ago that we created the Public Health Agency, which was supposed to help us be prepared for these things. We were not prepared. We did not have the stockpiles of PPE. In fact, we sent away PPE at a critical juncture early in the pandemic. There was a lack of preparedness, particularly around having the equipment that was required.

Members will recall, and it is important to recall, that the leading public health authorities in this country and in the U.S. said not to use masks and that masks are ineffective or even counterproductive. That was the message at the beginning. Likely, part of the reason that message was pushed, in a context where doctors and nurses were using that equipment but the general public was told not to use these things because they are counterproductive, was that there was a shortage of supply. The government could have been more honest about acknowledging the fact that there was a shortage of supply and that it had failed to plan and prepare for that reality.

This speaks to another point. There is the lack of preparedness in terms of having the PPE available, but also we would have been much better off if governments and public health authorities had been more willing to openly acknowledge the things they did not know. I think early discussions around masking were a good example of the tone we had. People were told that if they were for masking when they were supposed to be against masking, they were anti-science and they were pushing an anti-science message. Later, there was the revision, in terms of the government's messaging.

Our public health authorities and governments could have shown a greater degree of humility right at the beginning of the pandemic and said that there were just things they did not know and that masking was a reasonable precautionary measure. However, it was a very assertive approach that carried itself throughout the pandemic with respect to any diversity of opinion in terms of pandemic strategy. If people were disagreeing with the prevailing consensus, then they were supposedly anti-science. As members have pointed out, the way science progresses is through some degree of open debate and challenging presumptions. The reality is that public health bodies and governments were expressing certainty about things that they were less than certain about.

Let us acknowledge that throughout the pandemic there were various revisions. I recall, for example, that when vaccines first came out the government's message was to take the first available vaccine. Then the government said not to take AstraZeneca and recommended Pfizer or Moderna but not AstraZeneca. At the same time as the government was not recommending AstraZeneca for Canadians, I had constituents who did what the government told them to do with the first shot, and now it was telling them that they were supposed to have a second shot of a different kind, which was apparently totally fine in Canada, whereas other countries were saying that people needed to have two doses of the same kind. I understand that as the science is unfolding there are going to be things we do not know, but if the government had been willing to acknowledge in a more honest, transparent way throughout that process that there were some things we did not know, we would have been much better off.

I want to conclude by saying that I am very concerned about some of the social and cultural impacts of this pandemic. Prior to the pandemic, we were already seeing trends where there was sort of a breaking down of traditional community and a greater political polarization. People were less likely to be involved in neighbourhood and community organizations, community leagues, faith organizations and these kinds of things and were becoming more polarized along political lines. Those existing trends were dramatically accelerated through the pandemic, where the restrictions made it difficult for people to gather together in the kind of traditional community structures that had existed previously, and we have seen a heightened political polarization, with people being divided on the basis of their views on masks and their vaccination status.

As we evaluate what happened in the pandemic, and this is more of a cultural work than a political work, we need to think about how we can bring our communities back together, reconcile people across these kinds of divides and try to rebuild the kinds of communities we had previously, where people put politics aside and were willing to get together and focus on what united them.

[Bonita Zarrillo, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Madam Speaker, the pandemic has been difficult for Canadians, and it has been especially difficult for frontline workers: nurses, physicians, long-term care workers, cleaners, retail staff, transit workers and others. They have been there for us throughout this pandemic, but the government has not been there for them. For three years, they have been on the front lines with no relief in sight.

The government called them heroes, but this accolade has not been backed up with tangible investments in their pay, working conditions or mental health supports. It is absolutely unacceptable that investments in mental health have not come to frontline workers while the Liberal government sits on $4.5 billion of unspent mental health funding. That needs to change.

As the premiers arrive this week for health care negotiations, I think about the workers who are part of the growing care economy. This includes nurses, who are disproportionately women, especially immigrant women. They have been underpaid and undervalued for decades because of gender discrimination.

Now is the time for the federal government to step up and end that discrimination and to do the work required to improve the working conditions of nurses across this country. As Linda Silas of the Canadian Federation of Nurses Unions has long said, it is past time to address, with actions, the dire shortage of nurses in this country.

With that in mind, I highlight for the Liberal government a study that has been going on in the HUMA committee for nearly a year on labour shortages. Its imminent report will hold critical testimony that outlines solutions to improve working conditions for health care workers and to attract and retain more nurses. It was informed by unions across the country that understand first-hand this critical problem. The government must listen to them and act with urgency.

Action is not something we see much of from the Liberal government, and it is one of the shortcomings of Bill C-293. Bill C-293 represents an unacceptable attempt to provide the illusion of action, accountability and oversight with respect to Canada's response to the COVID-19 pandemic. It will not actually achieve it. What is really needed is what the NDP and the member for Vancouver Kingsway have called for throughout this pandemic: “a root-to-branch, independent, penetrating and comprehensive review of Canada's COVID-19 preparedness and response.”

An advisory committee approach, as proposed in Bill C-293, has not shown great results. The proof is in the fact that even after the SARS advisory committee recommendations, Canada was ill-prepared for COVID-19.

Some good things did come out of the National Advisory Committee on SARS, like the initial emergency stockpile of PPE. However, as mentioned today, it was proven to be not properly maintained, given the millions of N95 masks that had expired and needed to be destroyed when the pandemic began. As COVID-19 hit, workers did not have the PPE supplies they needed in order to stay safe.

A May 2021 report from the AG confirmed that negligent management of Canada's emergency stockpile resulted in shortages of PPE for essential workers. Serious issues with the stockpile had been raised for more than a decade, and the Public Health Agency of Canada, with its specific mandate to plan and coordinate a national response to infectious diseases, was reported to have limited public health and emergency response management expertise in its own agency. How is it that PHAC did not have the required expertise to manage PPE stocks?

This lack of internal expertise played out in other ways too. When the pandemic hit in early 2020, the supply of essential medicines became a critical need, but Canada had walked away from investing in biomanufacturing capacity in this country decades earlier.

Fast-forward to March 2021, when the lack of domestic production capacity of vaccines was a problem for the Canadian government. In response to the insecurity of adequate supply for Canadians, a federal COVID-19 vaccine task force was formed to seek out high-potential Canadian candidates for the manufacturing of vaccines.

Of course, the first thing the Liberals did was outsource because the knowledge of Canadian companies with capabilities did not already exist within Health Canada. Deloitte was contracted, and at least one potential candidate was identified, Biolyse Pharma, which, as per John Fulton's testimony at INDU committee, was “several years into the construction of a biologics manufacturing centre”.

Biolyse could repurpose its facility for vaccine production with an investment from the federal government for as little as $4 million, yet the lack of government expertise, response and political will did not make this happen. I will mention at this point that this is the same for the TRIPS waiver.

I want to take a moment to recognize the hon. member for Oakville, the Minister of National Defence. Her skill and determination in securing life-saving vaccines for Canadians after initial government missteps should never be forgotten.

Going back to PPE, at the beginning of the pandemic, Canadian manufacturers stepped up with production. Companies like Novo Textiles in my riding of Port Moody—Coquitlam invested quickly to retool their facilities and take up the government's request for critical PPE. However, even though Novo Textiles and other members of CAPPEM made investments to ramp up production, the government did not come through with timely certifications or purchase orders to support these heroic initiatives.

To add insult to injury, it took a motion from an opposition party in this House two years into the pandemic to get the federal government to even purchase Canadian PPE for the Hill and federal staff. In this very place, there were no Canadian-made masks until 2022.

It seems that it is not a lack of government-created and government-chosen advisory board members, consultants and plans that is missing. It is the ramping up of internal expertise and the political will to act that is needed. That is why the New Democrats call on the federal government and cabinet to launch an independent public inquiry into Canada's COVID–19 response under the Inquiries Act without delay. As I mentioned earlier, my colleague from Vancouver—Kingsway has been calling for a comprehensive review of Canada's COVID–19 preparedness and response throughout this pandemic. It is the only way to have accountability and adequate preparedness and prevention management going forward.

Canadians want and deserve that too. According to an April 2022 poll from Research Co., 66% of Canadians support holding a public inquiry into the way the COVID–19 pandemic was managed by the federal government.

Last week, the director general of the World Health Organization noted the third anniversary of the declaration of the COVID pandemic and said that it continues to constitute a public health emergency of international concern. This pandemic is not over, and the Liberals can no longer hold off on an independent inquiry into their handling of it. They must act now.

Although we are in a better position now than we were during the peak of the omicron transmission one year ago, this pandemic is not over. We cannot get complacent. Surveillance and genetic sequencing have declined globally, making it more difficult to track known variants and detect new ones.

At the same time, Canadian health systems are on the verge of collapse. Frontline workers have been heroic, yet it has resulted in burnout, fatigue and early retirements. As we work through this reality, more federal investments are needed in health care and nurses. There needs to be respect for women in the care economy, because they have always been the true backbone of the economy.

The current nursing shortage has certainly proved that the Liberals need to take the work of solving the nursing shortage seriously and take action. The Prime Minister must not let down nurses as the premiers arrive this week. The Liberal government has a responsibility to be part of the solution and to act on the health care crisis, which has been exasperated by COVID–19.

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Madam Speaker, for most of us, March 12, 2020, marked the official start of the COVID-19 pandemic, which had a major impact on the life of our communities and the organization of our societies and our work. It had an especially big impact on our social interactions.

Three years later, we have the right, as citizens, to know what really happened so that we can learn from this unprecedented public health crisis, even though we hope such a crisis never happens again.

Bill C-293, an act respecting pandemic prevention and preparedness, seeks to require the Minister of Health to establish an advisory committee to review the response to the COVID-19 pandemic in Canada. Obviously, we are not against doing the right thing. If, of course, the intention of the bill is laudable, then, as the Bloc Québécois has said, and as I will say again today, an independent public inquiry is the only acceptable way to judge the government's actions. In order to shed light on the complete chain of events, we need to calmly hold an independent, transparent national inquiry, without partisanship, by opening a constructive dialogue with the various stakeholders.

We have heard the horror stories from the book entitled Le printemps le plus long, or the longest spring, a journalistic account written by Alec Castonguay. I encourage my colleagues to read it, as it is full of examples of the Liberal government's chronic lack of preparation. The threat level moved from high to critical, but the Liberal ministers' typical inaction—even though the alarm had been sounded—had serious and catastrophic repercussions on everything, including our health care systems in Quebec and in all the provinces.

I would like to highlight the Global Public Health Intelligence Network, or GPHIN. Essentially, it is the Public Health Agency of Canada's version of CSIS. It is an invaluable governmental tool, and it is a reference in the prevention field.

Canadian scientists are the go-to source for health alerts for 85 countries. They are able to detect chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear public health threats while constantly scanning public open-source news in real time.

In his investigative work, Alec Castonguay wrote that the GPHIN, a victim of PHAC leadership's changing priorities, was unable to sound the alarm earlier. That is the first thing we need to get to the bottom of, and that is why we need an independent public inquiry.

The Liberals changed the GPHIN's mandate because they wanted to control the message. This is the same government that, in 2015, said it would no longer muzzle scientists. The Liberals are doing the same thing as the previous government. That is unacceptable. Our people deserve so much better than what they have gotten over the last few years.

It was not until July 2020, after journalists once again uncovered the truth, that the then-health minister was forced to launch an internal inquiry to find out why officials did not sound the alarm earlier. Will we ever find out why? Honestly, I doubt it.

There are other examples. In the 1950s, during the Cold War, the Canadian government created the national emergency strategic stockpile. Essentially, its purpose is to store pharmaceuticals and supplies used by social services. It is a stockpile of medical assets, equipment and supplies. This strategic stockpile is intended to be used specifically during a pandemic or health disaster. When the Liberals came to power, they neglected this strategic resource, which is why thousands of items of personal protective equipment, including the well-known N95 masks, had to be destroyed.

If we look back, members will recall that the U.S. President at the time decided to invoke the Defense Production Act to stop the shipment of materials to fight COVID-19 to other countries, including Canada. More than 500,000 N95 masks were stuck in the United States. Thousands of health care workers were put at high risk because of this government, which might lead one to question whether it is running the country in a serious and thoughtful way.

It was Quebec that had to charter the biggest plane in the world, have it travel from Ukraine to China to fill up with protection equipment, pay the people on the tarmac at the Shanghai airport in cash and have the plane land in Mirabel, because the federal government is unable to properly manage its supply of masks. Seriously, it is a nightmare.

A contract to produce ventilators was hastily awarded to Frank Baylis, a former Liberal MP who was a friend of the government. I met him at the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics. According to the worst-case estimates, we needed 13,500 ventilators, but 27,148 were ordered. That is twice as many, but, after all, “a friend is a friend”.

There was chaos at the border as well. Valérie Plante, the Montreal mayor, and François Legault, the Quebec premier, had to coordinate to send public health officers from Montreal to the Trudeau airport to enforce quarantines. I saw it with my own two eyes. In the meantime, the Trudeau government, which is often more concerned with its image than with results—

[Warren Steinley, Conservative, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to join in the debate to discuss Bill C-293, an act respecting pandemic prevention and preparedness.

I do not think we would find anyone in the House who would be against being prepared for when the next pandemic comes to our country. However, we would have a different way of going about it.

Looking through the bill brought forward by the member from the government's side, there are a few questions that come to my mind right away.

One of its sections talks about agriculture and industrial agriculture. It states:

(l) after consultation with the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, the Minister of Industry and provincial governments, provide for measures to:

(i) reduce the risks posed by antimicrobial resistance,

(ii) regulate commercial activities that can contribute to pandemic risk, including industrial animal agriculture,

(iii) promote commercial activities that can help reduce pandemic risk, including the production of alternative proteins, and

(iv) phase out commercial activities that disproportionately contribute to pandemic risk, including activities that involve high-risk species;

I do not see a definition of what those high-risk species. We have a question about that.

The section continues:

(m) include the following information, to be provided by the Minister of the Environment:

after consultation with relevant provincial ministers, a summary of changes in land use in Canada, including in relation to disturbed habitats, that could contribute to pandemic risk, such as deforestation, encroachment on wildlife habitats and urbanization and that were made, in the case of the first plan, since the last report on changes in land use published under the Federal Sustainable Development Act or, in the case of the updated plans, during the reporting period for the updated plan,

There are issues that will need discussion.

First, I would ask the member who brought the bill forward if he had discussions with the provincial and territorial health ministers already. When I read the bill, there is a lot of encroachment on provincial jurisdiction. I think some of the Bloc members would have concerns about that as well, moving to take over some of the things that should be in the province's jurisdiction.

I have another issue with respect to the agriculture file. I am on the agriculture standing committee and a few things in the bill could limit the use of agricultural land. That concerns me and the people who I represent across western Canada and in Saskatchewan. Our producers do a fantastic job with managing their land use. Part of this preparedness plan has some land use issues in it.

Talking about deforestation, one of the biggest countries that is in competition for agriculture, one that our producers compete against, is Brazil. Brazil is doing a lot of deforestation right now, putting more and more land into agriculture use. If we could use our land and produce more, we would be helping the environment on a larger scale by ensuring that other countries would not have to use deforestation. They would have to put that use of land into agriculture, which would be great for our environment.

More concerns around the pandemic preparedness act are some of the encroachments on our civil liberties. One thing that is mentioned a few times in the bill is the “one health approach”. Like many people, I did not know what one health meant, but I did get a definition from its website. It states:

One Health' is an integrated, unifying approach to balance and optimize the health of people, animals and the environment. It is particularly important to prevent, predict, detect, and respond to global health threats such as the COVID-19 pandemic.

The approach mobilizes multiple sectors, disciplines and communities at varying levels of society to work together. This way, new and better ideas are developed that address root causes and create long-term, sustainable solutions.

One Health involves the public health, veterinary, public health and environmental sectors. The One Health approach is particularly relevant for food and water safety, nutrition, the control of zoonoses (diseases that can spread between animals and humans, such as flu, rabies and Rift Valley fever), pollution management, and combatting antimicrobial resistance (the emergence of microbes that are resistant to antibiotic therapy).

On the surface, it sounds like it is a pretty good approach, but one of the concerns I would have is the loss of our own ability to get ready for the next pandemic. The problem is that the one health initiative to integrate work on human, animal and environmental issues limits our ability to look after our own Canadians citizens. This, from the WHO, is more of an overarching approach to health care and that still should be central to governments in their own countries not to have that loss of control. We need to dive into this and look a lot closer at the one-health approach.

I hear my colleague from Winnipeg North speaking. I hope he gets up on his feet today.

Unfortunately, the Conservatives are concerned with most bills the Liberals bring forward. They take a decent idea in theory, but then they over-complicate it. That is what this legislation would do and that is one of the reasons we will be unable to support it.

Also, when it comes to the Liberals' approach to the pandemic, all we have seen throughout the pandemic is a lot of money being thrown at some of the issues when it comes to programming. We have found out now from PBO that 40% of that money was not even used for pandemic services. That is a big concern for us and we believe it is one of the major factors that has been hitting inflation so hard for Canadians across the country.

The approach the Conservatives are taking is that we would like to see a little more control and a lot more consultation. I asked about the dental program that my friends across the way hail so largely. I asked the Minister of Health if he consulted with the health ministers of the provinces and territories before the Liberals brought forward the dental program. To this date, he has never answered me. I would really like to see some follow up on the consultations the member did on his private member's bill with the other jurisdictions, the municipal and provincial leaders. I would also like to know if they had any input into bill before it was tabled.

I would like to see some follow up on the consultations that were had with the appropriate health ministers and also with the agriculture ministers. The Liberals talk about agriculture, land use within agriculture and animal health, so I also wonder if the member, before putting his private member's bill forward, had discussions with all the agriculture ministers across the country as well since they are talking about changes to land use in agriculture land.

I have not heard whether the member spoke to the Saskatchewan agriculture minister. I wonder if there were any conversations with those ministers. When we talk about consultation, we talk about working together in other governmental jurisdictions, with provincial, territorial and municipal leaders. I believe the government has failed on those consultations many times. I wonder if this is another stack of failed consultations that should have been done before the bill was brought forward.

I look forward to hearing other speeches and whether other members will or will not support the bill. I am happy to stand and lay out some of the reasons why I feel the government does not have the capacity to be prepared for the next pandemic. I hope that we can work together with our provincial and municipal leaders to ensure we have things in place. The Conservatives believe that we have to be ready for the next pandemic, but we do not think this bill would get the job done.

The House resumed from November 15, 2022, consideration of the motion that Bill C-293, An Act respecting pandemic prevention and preparedness, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a privilege to rise in this House and speak on behalf of the great people of Vancouver Kingsway and as the health critic for the New Democratic Party of Canada.

Tonight, I speak to Bill C-293, which, in our view, represents an unacceptable attempt to provide the illusion of accountability and oversight with respect to Canada's response to the most severe pandemic in a century.

I am going to briefly review the measures the bill calls for. If enacted, it would require the Minister of Health to establish an advisory committee to review the response to the COVID-19 pandemic in Canada. It would require the Minister of Health to establish, in consultation with other ministers, a pandemic prevention and preparedness plan.

It would amend the Department of Health Act to provide that the Minister of Health must appoint a national pandemic prevention and preparedness coordinator from among the officials at the Public Health Agency of Canada to coordinate the activities called for under the act.

From the very inception of this pandemic back in early 2020, New Democrats have been calling for a root-to-branch, independent, penetrating and comprehensive review of Canada's COVID-19 preparedness and response. Unfortunately, the measures outlined in Bill C-293 fall far short of that standard.

By way of background, the National Advisory Committee on SARS and Public Health was established in May 2003 by the then minister of health, Anne McLellan, following the outbreak of SARS. The committee's mandate at that time was to provide a “third-party assessment of current public health efforts and lessons learned for ongoing and future infectious disease control.”

The next year, in 2004, the Public Health Agency of Canada was established in response to the advisory committee's recommendations. That agency was specifically mandated to be Canada's lead organization for planning and coordinating a national response to infectious diseases that pose a risk to public health.

Canadians expected that the federal government would build and maintain the capacity to protect them from future pandemic threats. Instead, both the Liberals and the Conservatives allowed that capacity to atrophy under successive governments.

Canadian officials first became aware of SARS-CoV-2, the virus responsible for COVID-19, on December 31, 2019, yet PHAC did not assess the pandemic risk posed by COVID-19 or the potential impact were it to be introduced to Canada.

As a result, the agency underestimated the potential danger of COVID-19 and continued to assess the risk as low until March 15, 2020, nearly a week after the World Health Organization had declared a global pandemic. By then, Canada had already recorded over 400 confirmed cases and community spread was under way.

Even as the machinery of public health ground into action, deficiencies in the federal government's pandemic preparedness and response were glaring. Pandemic response evaluations conducted in Canada to date have documented serious deficiencies.

A scathing internal PHAC audit released in January 2021 found limited public health expertise at the agency, including a lack of epidemiologists, psychologists, behavioural scientists and physicians at senior levels. The audit also found a lack of emergency response management expertise and capacity within the agency, the very agency charged with preparing Canada for a pandemic.

PHAC communications were terrible. Internal auditors found that PHAC was missing sufficient skills and capacity for risk communications. Our chief public health officer is Dr. Theresa Tam. Her office noted that she often received information in the wrong format, with inaccuracies or in an inappropriate voice needed to convey information to the Canadian audience.

Canadians will remember the problems with Canada's so-called emergency stockpile. A May 2021 report, a full year after Canada declared a global pandemic, from the Auditor General confirmed that negligent management of Canada's emergency stockpile resulted in shortages of PPE for essential workers when COVID-19 hit.

Serious issues with the stockpile had been raised for more than a decade prior to that with nothing done. Canadians will remember we had to throw out millions of PPE in this country because they were out of date as PHAC was not accurately keeping track of them.

A March 2021 report from the Auditor General found that PHAC only verified compliance with quarantine orders for one-third of incoming travellers and did not consistently refer travellers for follow-up who risked not complying.

Later in that year, in December 2021, the Auditor General found that PHAC was either missing or unable to match 30% of COVID-19 test results to incoming travellers from February to June 2021.

In addition, because the agency did not have records of stay for 75% of travellers who flew into Canada, it did not even know whether those who were required to quarantine at government-authorized hotels had in fact complied.

As for long-term care, in May 2020, a report from the Canadian Armed Forces documented shocking and disturbing conditions in long-term care homes where approximately 1,600 trained military personnel had to be deployed. It highlighted serious concerns about shortages of personal protective equipment, staffing levels and failures to follow basic procedures of infection control to keep both residents and staff safe.

That is a sample of what we know to date. PHAC officials have said that they will address identified shortcomings by incorporating “learnings from the pandemic into its plans and test them as appropriate.” In response to the Auditor General's report, PHAC has promised to update its plans within two years of the end of the pandemic.

I want to stop there for a moment. This bill would have the Minister of Health, who is in charge of PHAC, appoint an advisory committee, not even an independent committee with powers but an advisory committee, to assess his or her performance and the performance of PHAC, which is under the aegis of the health minister. Talk about a conflict of interest. That is like the defendant appointing the judge. That is completely unacceptable on its own.

In April 2021, the then Liberal health minister said that a full investigation into Canada's COVID-19 response is required at the “appropriate time”. She noted:

We are still in a crisis and so our focus remains right now on getting Canadians...through this global health crisis...and when the time is right, our government will be very open to examining very thoroughly the response of this country to the COVID-19 crisis.

In September of this year, our current health minister said in an interview that there should be a broad-based review of how the COVID-19 pandemic was handled. He noted that a government decision could come “soon”, without specifying when or what kind of formal review should be held. However, when asked if it should be independent of PHAC, he would only say a “strong” review is necessary.

To date, the Prime Minister has deferred all questions about an inquiry or review of the pandemic response, saying that there will be time for a “lessons learned” exercise but that it must wait until the pandemic is over.

New Democrats want the federal cabinet to launch an independent public inquiry into Canada's COVID-19 response under the Inquiries Act without delay. Throughout the pandemic, we have called for such an investigation and the time is now. We are past the emergency phase of the pandemic. We are approaching the third-year anniversary of COVID coming into this country. Now is the time for that root-to-branch inquiry.

Rather than providing a transparent, independent and comprehensive review of Canada's COVID-19 response, this bill would not do that. The measures do not meet the standard. Rather, this legislation represents an unacceptable attempt to provide the illusion of accountability and oversight with respect to Canada’s response to the most severe pandemic we have ever faced.

The Inquiries Act would establish an independent chair of that inquiry. It would empower that inquiry to subpoena witnesses, to order the production of documents and to hold evidence in public and under oath. It would allow them to retain appropriate experts, including counsel and technical experts to advise them.

Most importantly, the inquiry would be done independently of the government and in public. Every Canadian was affected by all governments’ pandemic response and Canadians have to have confidence that any inquiry that looks at the decisions that were made and the mistakes that were made is done in an honest way with integrity.

I note that experts across the country agree with the position of the NDP. Dr. David Naylor, chair of the federal COVID-19 Immunity Task Force and former chair of the federal review of the 2003 SARS epidemic, has called for an independent review. Richard Fadden, former national security adviser to the Prime Minister, has called for an independent review. Dr. Adrian Levy, Dr. David Walker and Dr. David Butler-Jones have all called for such an inquiry.

We do not need a citizens’ inquiry that is called for by Preston Manning, because we do not want this to be a political circus. We do not want a Liberal bill that stickhandles this inquiry into safe waters for a whitewash. We do not want a political circus. We do not want a whitewash.

The NDP and Canadians want an independent, objective and searching root-to-branch inquiry into all aspects of the federal preparation and response to COVID-19 and we will not stop until Canadians get that.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by thanking my colleague from Beaches—East York for introducing this bill. I must say I have a great deal of respect for that colleague. I think he is a free thinker and a top-notch parliamentarian. I noticed that even before I joined Parliament. I was waiting for the right time to tell him, and now it has come.

Bill C‑293 essentially seeks to ensure that the Government of Canada is better positioned, at least in theory, to deal with future health crises and pandemics and, in some way, to learn from them.

What is more, as I said earlier in my question, this bill is very proactive. It talks about establishing an advisory committee, developing a plan for the future and appointing officials to prepare contingency plans for future pandemics, although the bill provides a lot of room for that to potentially evolve in one way or another. This would also require major involvement from Health Canada, the Department of Health, and so on.

I feel somewhat uneasy about this bill. Although I believe that it is well intentioned, I think that the Government of Canada already has, and did have, a large number of tools at its disposal that were not used much, if at all. I seriously wonder if we are adding another layer of red tape, more committees and all sorts of things when the recent pandemic already exposed the significant flaws in the federal apparatus.

I believe that what we need at this time is a public inquiry. If we are unable to have a serious independent inquiry shed light on the serious flaws in the federal government's management of the pandemic over the past months and years, we will not be able to benefit from any new institutions, such as the ones presented in this bill.

We are in a rather odd situation. We have a minority government, and we are currently in a situation where the Conservatives have asked for an independent public inquiry and the Bloc Québécois is in favour of an independent public inquiry. I also heard my NDP colleague, who asked a very good question earlier, reiterate that we should have an independent public inquiry.

What is the Minister of Health's response to that? The minister says it is important to have a mechanism to hold an inquiry, but he will not say how or when.

That is typical. It is like saying, someone is very sick, but I am not telling if or when I will call an ambulance; we will just hope for the best. It is like saying, we know illegal firearms are out there in Montreal, and we think that is a big deal, but we are not telling how we plan to get them off the streets or when. It is like saying, we know French is in danger in Montreal, and we think that is a big deal, but we are not telling what we plan to do to protect it or when. That is basically what the government and the Minister of Health are saying.

I know that it is not the fault of my colleague who is introducing the bill. However, as parliamentarians, this puts us in a tough spot. We know that they want us to sit until midnight, that this means we will have less time in committee, and that we need to carefully select the bills we send to committee because of the behaviour of the Liberals and their friends in the NDP. This basically forces us to vote against the bill. It forces us to vote against it and tell the government to use the tools that are already at its disposal. If it has nothing to hide, then it should come clean on how it managed the pandemic.

What is the solution? According to the first part of the bill, it is the creation of a committee. Actually, the solution is to immediately launch an independent public inquiry. Then there are the second and third parts, which I find problematic, particularly as a sovereignist, as a Quebecker and as a Bloc Québécois member, because they talk about a prevention plan overseen by a national coordinator.

I am starting to spend a lot of time with the Standing Committee on Health, and I know that when something starts with “the federal government shall coordinate” or “the federal government shall use its leadership role”, it ends with federal legislation, spending power and conditions on our transfers. I know that if we do not do this or that, they are going to coordinate by tightening the purse strings and withholding the money. That is what coordination is, and that is what federal leadership is.

I know my colleague is well intentioned, but I have a hard time believing that the tools proposed in this bill will be put to good use. The priority should be to launch a public inquiry immediately.

With respect to jurisdictions, the bill states the following: “in collaboration with provincial and municipal governments, assess the public health and pandemic response capabilities of those governments”. Assessing the capabilities of provinces and municipal governments does not mean meddling in their affairs. This is complete interference. Since the Liberals have trouble looking inwards, they blame others and point fingers. This is minor interference.

A public inquiry is needed because 45,000 Canadians died and there were many failures on the part of the federal government. My colleague said the pandemic should not be used to score political points or to point fingers at others. He is right, but we have been asking for accountability for quite some time now, and we never see any. I do not understand how all these new committees and institutions will be used on a permanent basis.

My Conservative colleague spoke earlier about the Global Public Health Intelligence Network, an alert system that was modified in 2018, though we do not know how. It was changed by some official, and at some point in 2019, it shut down altogether, 400 days before the pandemic of the century. It is an alert network that gives us the opportunity to learn about global pandemics. The bill we are studying today proposes to establish a small committee to assess how provinces and municipalities have done their job.

My colleague from Beaches—East York said earlier that we need to be prepared for the next 10, 20 and 30 years. In 1950, the national emergency stockpile was established to store pharmaceuticals, supplies, pandemic stockpiles, and so on. However, that stockpile has been systematically neglected, and since 2015, N95 masks have even been destroyed because the government got tired of storing them. Now we would be planning for the future without knowing what happened with that.

We recently spoke about the infamous respirators. There were 27,148 in the stockpile, but the government ordered over 27,000. The Minister of Health told us that it was important to look out for people and plan ahead. I am getting good at imitating the health minister. In the worst-case scenario modelled by the federal government, we needed 13,500 respirators. A $237‑million contract was awarded to FTI Professional Grade, a shell company owned by a former Liberal MP. This company produced half of the surplus, or 10,000 respirators. We now have 13,000 too many, yet we need to set up small committees.

Let us talk about quarantine management. Montreal had to rush its own staff over to the airport because the federal government was too incompetent. What is more, 30% of the COVID-19 tests from screening locations at airports went missing. There was no automated quarantine registry. There was no follow-up with 59% of those who were flagged as priority cases. The federal government did not follow up with or contact 14% of those it knew had tested positive for COVID-19. Screening was not done in both official languages. I will not even talk about temporary foreign workers, because there were already major problems with that program and the federal government was unable to adapt it.

Then there is vaccine capacity. The government will say it ordered tons of vaccines, but as the 2003 Naylor report on what we learned from SARS revealed, Canada's production capacity is inadequate. We know we have to be more independent and capable of producing more. That report came out in 2003.

The government does not want a public inquiry, and the Minister of Health has nothing of substance to say. Moreover, the government does not want to give the provinces money, even though they are the ones who will be on the front lines if ever there is another pandemic.

Honestly, I respect my colleague. Truly, I do. However, I think introducing this bill at this point in time is inappropriate. The ball is in the government's court. I would like to see it use the law and the mechanisms it has to prove to us that it managed the pandemic properly. Once that is done, it might think twice before telling Quebec and the provinces how to manage things.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to rise in the House this evening.

This is an important topic, and I appreciate that the member for Beaches—East York has brought this legislation forward and prompted the discussion that we are having here today. I can certainly understand that after the past two years of COVID, there are those who feel we need to get something like this done immediately. Nobody wants COVID or something worse to hit Canadians. Our first priority as parliamentarians is the safety and security of our citizens. We have to take the time to properly reflect on and examine what we have just gone through to have a meaningful conversation about how to respond to a future pandemic.

The bill's proposal that the Minister of Health and other government ministers be the ones to put together or even make up the advisory committee to review their own response to the coronavirus is, frankly, quite ridiculous. That is like having the fox guard the henhouse, because they all have a very vested interest in the outcome. Canadians will never get the answers they deserve if the ministers who perpetuated or promoted many of the failures, abuses and violations of charter rights that we have seen over the past two years are the same ones tasked with reviewing their own government's response.

Let us face it: Transparency, accountability and, frankly, honesty are hardly synonymous with the government. We have seen first-hand much of the misinformation propagated by these ministers. That is why I propose, before embarking on some of the elements contained in Bill C-293, that we need a full non-partisan national inquiry into how governments at all levels have handled the response to COVID-19, because as I reflect on the past two years, there are too many questions. These are questions that have never been answered by government, and in many cases, no one in government or the media has even had the courage to publicly ask them.

Herein we have the first major issue in the government's handling of COVID. It is the “my way or the highway, we know best and do not dare ask questions about what we are doing” approach that the governments across this country have taken. We kept hearing “follow the science” and “we are following the science”. It is the political science, yes, but the last time I checked, a big part of doing real science involved asking questions, analyzing data and doing so with rigorous skepticism. We make an observation, we research the topic, we form a hypothesis, we test the experiments, we analyze the data and we report the conclusions as objectively as we can based solely on the empirical data. That is the scientific method.

In the case of COVID, the government never really got beyond forming a hypothesis. The Liberals based their response on the assumptions that they and many in the medical field made in the early days of COVID, which led to selective and often misleading data being collected and used to back up those assumptions.

The media also failed in their objectivity to ask questions, choosing instead to parrot government talking points as truth, sowing fear and division as they quietly pocketed hundreds of millions of dollars in government subsidies. They refused to allow different points of view. They did not ask the tough questions, and they silenced or mocked anyone who did.

Canadians should not need to fear repercussions in their workplaces, their communities, their professional associations, online or by the media. However, that is what happened. Anyone who questioned anything related to the government's handling of COVID, at any level of government, got smeared, bullied and cancelled. In a free and democratic society, that should be deeply concerning to all of us. Governments made huge demands of Canadians, and it is incumbent on governments at all levels to provide empirical data to back up their actions. We owe that to Canadians.

I sat down the other night as I prepared to deliver this speech today and started to write down some of those nagging questions. They are questions that we cannot trust the government to ask because it has sought so diligently for two years to cover up the answers from Canadians for its own political purposes. I am going to take the remaining time here to ask some of those questions.

For a start, why did the government make the decision in 2019 to shut down our pandemic early warning system? We had SARS and H1N1, and we knew the potential of a Canadian epidemic. Who chose to shut it down? Who in the government was responsible for leaving Canadians defenceless?

Why was there so much conflicting information provided by government and public health officials? There were days when the WHO said one thing, Dr. Tam said another and, in my province of Manitoba, Dr. Roussin said something completely different, and all on the same issue.

This bred confusion, fear and mistrust. I think this is the type of issue the legislation, at least in part, may be trying to address, but again, we cannot address these issues until we know first-hand what took place and who was responsible, and we cannot trust the government to provide us with those answers.

We learned that the Public Health Agency of Canada, the same department responsible for the government's COVID response, allowed our national microbiology lab in Winnipeg, one of our nation's foremost secure facilities, to be infiltrated by Chinese spies with direct links to both the Wuhan lab and the bioweapons program of the People's Liberation Army. Why?

The government sued Parliament to cover it up. It refused to come clean. Then it turned around and made a deal with China to be the sole manufacturer of Canada's vaccine supply. The deal ultimately fell through, but there are a lot of questions here that require answers. Why does the government refuse to release procurement details, such as the price per dose, when other governments have been transparent?

There are still legitimate questions related to vaccine safety and efficacy. Why did the government agree to hide the safety data on Pfizer for 75 years? There are 51,714 Canadians who have suffered vaccine injuries to date as a result of their COVID shots, with 10,501 serious reactions, including 874 anaphylactic reactions, 1,342 cases of myocarditis, 140 thrombosis cases and 382 reports with an outcome of death following vaccination. Where does that information come from? It is from the government's own website. Anyone can look it up. There are also many reports of doctors refusing to even file a VAERS report, which is a vaccine adverse event reaction report.

How many of those individuals have been compensated by the government's vaccine injury program to date? It is eight. Why is the media quiet about those things? Why is it that the Prime Minister was more interested in his political fortunes than in public health?

We saw this in the Prime Minister's decision to call an unnecessary election last fall. We have seen this in his unacceptable rhetoric demonizing those who chose not be vaccinated and in his heavy-handed approach to dealing with vaccine mandate protests. One minute our truckers are essential workers and heroes who kept our country going, and the next they are villains so awful that the Emergencies Act was invoked to deal with them. The inquiry, and ultimately history, will show what an unjustified and politically motivated response that was.

There are also serious questions related to government spending. The Liberal government spent unprecedented amounts, hundreds of billions of dollars, to fight COVID, but its own Parliamentary Budget Officer shows that at least 40% of that money, or $205 billion, never went to fighting COVID. Where did it go? We know that tens of millions of dollars have found their way into the pockets of Liberal cronies, as the government paid exponentially more for ventilators and other medical equipment that was never used and now sits collecting dust in warehouses.

Who got rich while Canadians suffered? Why did the government refuse to put any safeguards in place for CERB, resulting in three million people, including criminals in jail, receiving the CERB benefit? Why did the government send federal public servants home at a time when five million Canadians had lost their jobs and were forced into government programs and unable to access services? Why are they still at home?

My office has stayed open every day over the past two years to help Canadians. We did it safely and we had no issues with COVID. There is no reason that other government officials and agencies could not have done likewise. Canadians are paying their salaries, and public servants need to get back to the office and back to work full time for Canadians.

We could keep going on here all evening. We could talk about divisive and unscientific mandates. We could talk about the disastrous ArriveCAN app. We could talk about how the government's actions destroyed border communities and separated loved ones. We could talk about how Canadians were assaulted in quarantine hotels. We could talk about the provinces and their responses, and the draconian measures that in my view did far more long-term harm than good. The questions go on and on. Canadians deserve answers.

Over the past two years, governments have made big demands of Canadians. Canadians stepped up again and again, only to have their hopes dashed by government failures and broken promises as the goalposts were moved over and over again. Canadians deserve empirical justification for mandates. History will show that mandates were based on politics, not public health.

After two years of sickness, restrictions, divisions and fear, governments at all levels need to be held accountable for their actions. Bill C-293 is insufficient because the government, and any government, cannot and should not be trusted to investigate itself.

[Nathaniel Erskine-Smith, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

moved that Bill C-293, An Act respecting pandemic prevention and preparedness, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, as of today, we have lost over 45,000 Canadians to COVID, and millions of people around the world have died as a result of COVID. It has upended our lives in so many different ways, from isolation to school closures. It has upended businesses and caused major economic disruptions, reverberations that we still feel with difficult inflation and interest rate hikes that are challenging many households. The global impact on poverty rates and the upending of education around the world will have long-lasting and negative effects.

There was the increasing debt that governments around the world rightly took on to address this crisis in many respects. Both public and private debt also come with consequences. Fifty-seven per cent of Canadians whose debt increased attributed the increase to COVID. As a parliamentary intern in my office put it, even having just lived it first-hand, it is hard to wrap our heads around what we just experienced.

What can and should we do about all of that? What lessons should we learn? We have to be specific and clear, and put a framework in place to make sure we do not lose these lessons. Simply put, the message of this bill is that we need to learn the lessons from this pandemic in order to prevent and prepare for the next one. No, we are not done with COVID, but we have also lived through enough to learn from our pandemic response across all levels of government, and those lessons should inform our plans going forward.

What does the pandemic prevention and preparedness bill do? It does three things. First, it establishes a review of our COVID response, not just from the federal government's perspective but across all levels of government. The goal is to be comprehensive. Just to comment briefly on the scope of the review, the bill notes:

In conducting its review, the advisory committee is, among other things, to

(a) assess the capability of the Public Health Agency of Canada and the Department of Health to respond to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic before and during the pandemic;

(b) in collaboration with provincial and municipal governments, assess the public health and pandemic response capabilities of those governments;

(c) assess the effectiveness of the exercise of powers under any applicable federal laws before, during and after the pandemic and of the coordination of measures taken under those laws; and

Importantly, and this is the broad element to bring to bear on lessons learned:

(d) analyse the health, economic and social factors relevant to the impact of the pandemic in Canada.

There has to be a review if we are going to learn the lessons of our government's response and the response of all governments.

How do we take those lessons and put them into a framework where we are going to see accountability, transparency and action on a going-forward basis? The second thing the bill does is it requires the Minister of Health to establish a pandemic prevention and preparedness plan. It is modelled on climate accountability legislation.

To my knowledge the first piece of climate accountability legislation that I reviewed was from a Conservative government in the U.K. in 2006, and we now have such a framework in place here in Canada. This bill takes a similar approach to say there has to be a transparent and accountable framework by which a government is obligated to table a plan to Parliament, to the Canadian public, and then update that plan on a regular basis. The bill suggests every three years. I went back and forth between three and five years. I think five years would be appropriate as well.

It obligates the Minister of the Health to establish a pandemic prevention and preparedness plan and to table a report. The bill sets out a long list of factors. This is where it was quite difficult actually, because I was drawing from a great amount of expertise out there, from the United Nations Environment Programme's report on preventing future pandemics, from IPBES, the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services and their workshop reports in relation to pandemic risk and how we prevent future pandemics, and certainly from the independent panel. It has a series of reports now on preparedness and response at the national level and also at the global level, and how we could strengthen those responses at all levels.

Taking those expert reports, and in consultation with some of the researchers behind those reports and certainly with Canadian health experts as well, the bill sets out a series of factors that the Minister of Health must consider in developing a plan. I am sure I missed some elements, which is partly why it is so important to get a bill like this to committee. The committee could, I hope in a non-partisan way, say what does not make sense or whether something was missed or how we could get it to the best place possible as a matter of what should be in or out of a plan as the health minister considers it.

As a starting point, obviously enough, what the health minister should do is identify the key drivers of pandemic risk and describe how Canadian activities, domestic and abroad, contribute to the risk.

We focus a lot in this House and, frankly, in the Canadian public around preparedness strategies, and that is part of what this bill would do as well. We do not talk enough about prevention, but we know that the costs of prevention are a small fraction of the significant human and economic costs of living through a pandemic. Therefore, there has to be a real strong focus on prevention.

There also has to be a commitment to ensure collaboration at all levels of government, because it is not enough in our federation for the federal government to take action on its own. Similar to climate action, and certainly with respect to mitigating pandemic risk and to preparing for pandemics, it cannot all be on the federal government, and we have learned that. It is unquestionably a lesson we have learned in the course of the response to COVID. Therefore, the bill would require the Minister of Health to ensure sustained collaboration between the Minister of Health, provincial governments and indigenous communities in the development of the plan, in order to align approaches and address any jurisdictional challenges.

Now, I probably could have been a little clearer with the language here, but the bill would also provide for training programs, including collaborative activities with other levels of government. What I had in mind there, and I think a committee could improve this, was simulation and table-talking exercises. It is not enough to have a piece of paper with a plan written down. We have to put that plan into action and learn where there are gaps in the plan. Where jurisdictional challenges arise, they can be addressed through a simulation exercise rather than as we live through a real-life pandemic.

Now, a critical element here, when we draw from the literature, is that the plan has to be based on a “one health” approach. For those who do not know what a “one health” approach is, it is a relatively simple idea, although it can be a challenge sometimes in how we apply it, because of how holistic it is. It is this idea that we cannot pull apart human health, animal health and environmental health, that these are interconnected ideas and we have to think of them as one health.

We know this, and if we read the literature from the United Nations Environment Programme, from IPBES or from any number of experts, including Canadian experts in zoonotic diseases, they will tell us that zoonosis presents the greatest risk in relation to pandemics. Taking deforestation as an example, the spillover risk that can occur when humans are obviously going to come into closer contact with animals as a result of that deforestation creates not only a challenge to the environment, as it is a question of environmental health, but also then a question of human health, because of that spillover risk. When we run down a list of factors, and there are different reports on this, overwhelmingly the focus has to be on a “one health” approach.

I will read from the United Nations Environment Programme, which states:

This report confirms and builds on the conclusions of the FAO-OIE-WHO Tripartite Alliance and many other expert groups that a One Health approach is the optimal method for preventing as well as responding to zoonotic disease outbreaks and pandemics.

Therefore, there has to be a focus on a “one health” approach.

There also, of course, has to be a whole-of-government approach. It is not enough for the Minister of Health to work up a plan. The Minister of Health has to work with other ministers, break down silos in the federal government and ensure that we are putting ourselves on the best footing we possibly can to prevent and respond to future pandemics. The Minister of Industry has a role to play in terms of ensuring that we have vaccine manufacturing capacity and manufacturing capacity for essential treatments and tests. There is a role for the Minister of Public Safety and the Minister of Transport to play with respect to border controls. There is obviously a role for the Minister of Foreign Affairs to play with respect to global health equity, which is an issue that, unfortunately, we have, as wealthier countries, utterly failed on in a serious way in the course of this pandemic. There also ought to be collaboration, and this is in keeping with that idea of a “one health” approach, with the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Environment.

Therefore, if we think of a framework that already exists within the Government of Canada, a “one health” approach with respect to antimicrobial resistance, it is a partnership between the Department and the Minister of Health and the Department and the Minister of Agriculture, because we know, certainly in other countries around the world, that the increase and overuse of antibiotics can create the risk of superbugs. There are researchers at McMaster who call it the “silent pandemic”, referring to the number of lives that have already been taken by AMR. As I have said, it is a whole-of-government approach.

I will say that this has to be a focus of the committee when it looks at the series of factors, ensuring that it gets sustained collaboration with the provinces, because we need to make sure, for example, that there are preparedness strategies for public health services, including the protection of vulnerable and marginalized populations. That will be as much a provincial question as it is a federal question. The working conditions of essential workers across all sectors is as much a provincial issue as it is a federal issue.

The availability management of relevant stockpiles, including testing equipment and PPE, is more of a federal issue, but we have seen challenges at times at the provincial level as well.

There is the search capacity of the human resources required for testing and contact tracing, because we cannot have the human resources at the ready at all times. We need to be able to stand them up to meet the surge, and again the provinces and the federal government will need to work hand in hand on this.

There are a series of other factors, and I will not go into all of them. I want to mention the seven key disease drivers identified by the United Nations Environment Programme.

First is an increasing demand for animal protein, because we understand the spillover risk and lack of biosecurity, especially with increased demand in low and middle-income countries. It is a real challenge that needs to be addressed.

Second is unsustainable agricultural intensification.

Third is the increased use and exploitation of wildlife. If we look at the live animal markets around the world, they have presented challenges, including likely in the course of the crisis we have just lived through.

Fourth is the unsustainable utilization of natural resources, accelerated by urbanization and land-use change.

Fifth is travel and transportation.

Sixth is changes in the food supply chains. Traceability challenges are the issue there.

Seventh is climate change.

These are major twin risks. Climate change is an existential risk in and of itself, but it also drives pandemic risk. That is not to say we can eliminate travel, and we are not going to eliminate agriculture, but how do we look at these industries to find best efforts to reduce and mitigate pandemic risk to prevent a future pandemic? How do we make sure there are regulations in place so we can prepare for future pandemics as well?

I suppose the last item that I want to close off with is that there needs to be accountability in any particular role here.

One, the bill establishes a review, the lessons learned.

Two, it requires some detail about what ought to be in that plan. I have gone into this in some detail, and there is greater detail in the bill. I hope it can be a collaborative exercise at committee, because I want this to be a non-partisan exercise in getting it right.

Three, we need to make sure that we appoint a national pandemic prevention and preparedness coordinator to oversee and implement the plans, so there is proper accountability and an office for seeing this through.

Lastly, I want to close with this idea, because I think it is a relevant one. We forget crises in politics. We deal with them and then forget about them. Over time we saw this with SARS. We cannot go through another situation where 20 years from now we look back at a debate like this one or a pandemic prevention and preparedness plan that we developed in the year 2022 or 2023 that has been sitting on a shelf and has not been updated or implemented. The idea here, very much as a matter of accountability, is to ensure that all future governments, regardless of political stripe, take this seriously, renew their focus on pandemic prevention and preparedness, and make sure we do not lose sight of the lessons learned and do not live through something like this ever again as a society. I cannot overemphasize this: The costs of a pandemic like the one we have just lived through are so incredibly significant, and the costs of prevention and preparedness are a very small fraction of that.

I hope there is all-party support for getting this to committee to improve it, to bring amendments to it and to see it through.

I appreciate being given this time today.

[Nathaniel Erskine-Smith, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-293, An Act respecting pandemic prevention and preparedness.

Madam Speaker, I am introducing the pandemic prevention and preparedness act because the last two years have been impossibly hard for all of us. The costs of prevention and preparedness are insignificant in comparison with the significant human and economic costs of a pandemic. The purpose of this act is to prevent the risk of, and prepare for, future pandemics and to promote transparency and accountability toward that goal.

Specifically, the bill would require the health minister to collaborate with other ministers, other levels of government and indigenous communities to develop a pandemic prevention and preparedness plan and table an updated plan in Parliament on a regular basis. There are factors that the minister would have to consider in the course of that plan, and those factors are informed by UNEP, IPIS, the independent panel and other experts. The minister would also have to establish an advisory committee to review and learn the lessons of our COVID response, and appoint a national pandemic prevention and preparedness coordinator.

We need to do all that we can to prevent and prepare for future pandemics, and this bill would ensure that this obligation remains in focus for any future government in the years ahead.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)