Evidence of meeting #38 for Environment and Sustainable Development in the 45th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was information.

A recording is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

Members speaking

Before the committee

V. DeMarco  Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development, Office of the Auditor General
Jeanty  Assistant Deputy Minister, Department of Natural Resources
Fortier  Principal, Office of the Auditor General
Grondin  Principal, Office of the Auditor General
El Bied  Director General, Policy and Outreach, Emergency Management Branch, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
Wood  Director, Engineering and Technical Services, Small Craft Harbours, Department of Fisheries and Oceans
Furness  Deputy Chief Veterinary Officer, Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Robinson  Director General, Centre for Foodborne, Environmental and Zoonotic Infectious Diseases, Public Health Agency of Canada
Evans  Director General, Environment and Sustainable Management, Department of National Defence

12:35 p.m.

Assistant Deputy Minister, Department of Natural Resources

Rinaldo Jeanty

Maybe what I could do is explain a bit in terms of what was put in place and how it was done. The commissioner's report indicated that, in 2022, the federal government did put in place an analysis, which was the baseline information that we collected to be able to work with the provinces.

Since that time, given that the jurisdiction is at the provincial and territorial level, we have worked individually with each province, on the basis of agreements and projects that have been established, to make sure that the list is updated and reflective of the local areas, priority projects and priority areas that those provinces want to map. That is specifically based on the high-risk areas and priority areas.

When it's looked at from that perspective, I would say to you that we are fully on track at this point. We have published 450-plus maps at this juncture, and we are on track to surpass the targets that have been set by the national adaptation strategy of mapping 200-plus high-risk areas Canada-wide.

12:35 p.m.

Conservative

Amanpreet S. Gill Conservative Calgary Skyview, AB

Natural Resources Canada told the Auditor General that it viewed the 2022 prioritization list only as a preliminary decision-making tool.

If that list was not intended to guide actual funding decisions, what was its practical purpose?

12:35 p.m.

Assistant Deputy Minister, Department of Natural Resources

Rinaldo Jeanty

I'm sorry. I'm not sure I fully heard the question. I think you're still asking about the list and the prioritization that was put together by the federal government. Is that correct?

12:35 p.m.

Conservative

Amanpreet S. Gill Conservative Calgary Skyview, AB

Yes.

The question is this: If the 2022 prioritization list was viewed only as a preliminary decision-making tool and was not intended to guide actual funding decisions, what was its practical purpose?

12:35 p.m.

Assistant Deputy Minister, Department of Natural Resources

Rinaldo Jeanty

The practical purpose of the analysis that was done in 2022 was to help us begin a conversation with the provinces to at least identify, based on the data that we had available at the federal government level, what we thought the high-risk areas were going to be.

I will remind the committee that jurisdiction for flood mapping is at the provincial and territorial level. Based on that, we have to make sure that we are prioritizing based on information that the local communities and local areas put forward, and that's what we've done.

Amanpreet S. Gill Conservative Calgary Skyview, AB

That's good.

How can Natural Resources Canada claim its flood mapping program protects vulnerable Canadians when the department did not track whether mapping investments reached the communities it identified as most at risk?

12:35 p.m.

Assistant Deputy Minister, Department of Natural Resources

Rinaldo Jeanty

I will repeat the same thing I've said.

The preliminary list that was done was based on data that the federal government collected. Jurisdictional responsibility is at the provincial and territorial level. Every dollar spent to date has been based on what the provinces have prioritized and on the high-risk areas that have been identified collaboratively with the provinces and territories. We intend to continue doing that.

The Vice-Chair Bloc Patrick Bonin

Mr. Malette, you have the floor.

Chris Malette Liberal Bay of Quinte, ON

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'll be sharing my time with Mr. Fanjoy.

My question for Ms. Robinson refers to the H5N1 vaccines in particular.

Now that we've experienced the 2021 outbreak, gotten through it and seen our procurement of vaccines, what improvements have already been made to procurement tracking and distribution processes since the audit period closed? Are we on track to implement system-level updates at any point in the coming year?

12:40 p.m.

Director General, Centre for Foodborne, Environmental and Zoonotic Infectious Diseases, Public Health Agency of Canada

Kerry Robinson

One thing I want to start with is that certainly we've seen, from a global zoonotic perspective, that H5N1 has been a significant issue since 2021, as you noted and as my colleague Dr. Furness spoke to, in the animal context. The risk for humans does continue over time, and the risk for animals, as she noted, obviously wildlife, poultry and other mammals, continues over time. Therefore, we have to be vigilant, and we have to have a lot of proactive preparedness, which is the approach we've taken with our partners across different departments.

We're speaking about vaccines, but vaccines are one part of the preparedness package. You need to have six different pillars of preparedness, including surveillance, laboratory diagnostics and modelling, risk assessment—and not a “one and done” risk assessment, but ongoing and updated risk assessment—guidance for health professionals and resources, medical countermeasures including vaccines but also antivirals, for example, for humans, as well as scientific evidence, research gaps and readiness for outbreaks if they were to occur.

We've made significant progress, especially since 2024, when we saw the novel spillover, which was unexpected—highly unexpected and the first globally—from birds into dairy cattle in the U.S. Dairy cattle was a brand new host, if you will, of the virus and that obviously resulted in significant impacts in the dairy industry in the U.S., but there were also human cases. I think there were up to 66 human cases in the U.S. Again, they had been in very low numbers prior to that.

As part of that readiness, we did, obviously, advance our work on vaccine procurement in 2024, and we made that decision for a modest supply.

I want to highlight some of the objectives of that modest supply. It's important to know the context. The primary objective, in fact, was for pandemic readiness. As you may know, multiple countries in the world have purchased a stockpile of H5 vaccines for readiness, not for broad deployment, and that is our primary objective: for use in the event of a pandemic. We had a potential across the border from our neighbour, our friendly neighbour across the way, for avian influenza to rapidly move into Canada through dairy, poultry or humans, so we needed to have those vaccines there. Our secondary objective was to provide a small supply for potential, targeted use for those populations most at risk.

We had two objectives there, and the primary one was readiness. In terms of those doses, from our learnings and improvement over time, we purchased 870,000 doses. In a best-case scenario, you would have high vaccine uptake and little to no wastage, but that is very challenging when you have 10 doses in one vial. Someone might need to be vaccinated in a rural area of Saskatchewan and someone else in a city, and you might have to use one vial for one person.

All that is to say that 870,000 doses would allow you to vaccinate a maximum of 435,000 people in Canada. That represents 1% of the Canadian population, and our decision was to procure a supply that was quite modest. We need to have some kind of insurance policy. If we were to have a pandemic on our doorstep and no vaccine, it would be at least 14 to 20 weeks before we could get access to a pandemic vaccine.

That is why we took that readiness approach.

Chris Malette Liberal Bay of Quinte, ON

Thank you very much, Ms. Robinson.

I'll pass it on to my colleague.

Bruce Fanjoy Liberal Carleton, ON

Mr. Jeanty, in 2024, severe weather cost insured damages of $8.5 billion in Canada. Uninsured damages would have added considerably to that total.

Could you elaborate on the outcome of not making these investments in flood mapping on the consequences of disasters we would face?

12:40 p.m.

Assistant Deputy Minister, Department of Natural Resources

Rinaldo Jeanty

I think the chair has given me not so much time to respond, so I'll respond very quickly.

I would say that it's tremendously important for us to continue working in this space. Our provincial colleagues have indicated to us how important it is for the federal government to continue investing, and certainly we've seen the result in how many communities are now better informed as a result of all the mapping that has been done since the program began.

The Vice-Chair Bloc Patrick Bonin

Thank you.

Colleagues, I see that we have 15 minutes left on the regular schedule. Do you want to continue and do another round of questions, or would you prefer a shorter meeting today?

Mr. Bexte, you have the floor.

12:45 p.m.

Conservative

David Bexte Conservative Bow River, AB

Let's keep going with another round.

The Vice-Chair Bloc Patrick Bonin

The floor is yours.

12:45 p.m.

Conservative

David Bexte Conservative Bow River, AB

Thank you very much, Chair. I appreciate the time.

I appreciate the witnesses' and testifiers' patience and the time they have spent here at the committee.

Ms. Robinson, regarding the H5N1 bird flu virus or avian influenza vaccines, you stated that 870,000 doses were acquired. The AG's report mentioned that 95% of the doses were left unused. You gave some description about that and the justification. The AG's office found discrepancies in the data used in the procurement process.

What steps have been taken to ensure that there's going to be less waste and that, moving forward, the procurement process is going to properly reflect that demand? How do you calculate the demand?

12:45 p.m.

Director General, Centre for Foodborne, Environmental and Zoonotic Infectious Diseases, Public Health Agency of Canada

Kerry Robinson

That's an excellent question. Thank you very much for that.

It's a complicated process. As I mentioned, there were two objectives. One was for readiness in case the virus were to evolve and we were to have human-human transmission, which would need a rapid response. Those are basically pandemic or pre-pandemic conditions. We were trying to balance that out and not wanting to procure vaccines for a large portion of the population. That's why we ended up going with that low number that would cover a maximum of 1% of the population. The second one was around the targeted use for at-risk populations.

It was never our assumption that we would get to a very high level of uptake because the primary purpose was readiness—just in case. That being said, we did learn from Finland, which is an example of a country that did modest deployment of vaccines for at-risk populations like veterinary workers and vets, wildlife workers, and lab workers working directly with the virus or working in areas where they're exposed to contaminated environments or animals.

We are taking our due diligence with our forward-looking approach. We are developing a new decision-making framework to guide on us on decisions for a future potential procurement of vaccines.

12:45 p.m.

Conservative

David Bexte Conservative Bow River, AB

That's in process, then, and you have new guidelines.

Do you have data from similar jurisdictions? You talked about Finland. Would you consider the 95% rate an outlier, or is it similar to Finland's case?

12:45 p.m.

Director General, Centre for Foodborne, Environmental and Zoonotic Infectious Diseases, Public Health Agency of Canada

Kerry Robinson

No, it's very similar. Finland had an uptake of less than 5%. The majority of countries that have purchased the H5N1 vaccines have not used them at all. They've had 100% non-use.

12:45 p.m.

Conservative

David Bexte Conservative Bow River, AB

What efforts were made to educate the human population, the at-risk population?

12:45 p.m.

Director General, Centre for Foodborne, Environmental and Zoonotic Infectious Diseases, Public Health Agency of Canada

Kerry Robinson

We do that work as a federal government agency with animal health partners like CFIA. Dr. Furness spoke about engagement with industry associations. We work with provinces and territories. It's a careful balance in terms of the risk of avian influenza, which can change dramatically.

Overall, the risk for the general population of Canada is low, with higher risks for those exposed. The risk-benefit analysis in terms of vaccination is not high for the majority of the population. Obviously, it is for those most at risk. There were targeted efforts, especially through provinces and territories and local animal health leadership.

12:45 p.m.

Conservative

David Bexte Conservative Bow River, AB

What company provided the vaccine?

12:45 p.m.

Director General, Centre for Foodborne, Environmental and Zoonotic Infectious Diseases, Public Health Agency of Canada

Kerry Robinson

We used our primary pandemic influenza vaccine supplier, GSK.

12:45 p.m.

Conservative

David Bexte Conservative Bow River, AB

It was GSK. It was not domestically produced.