Evidence of meeting #21 for Health in the 43rd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was research.
A recording is available from Parliament.
6:45 p.m.
Liberal
Mike Kelloway Liberal Cape Breton—Canso, NS
Wonderful.
My next question is for you, Dr. Grandvaux, from the Society for Virology. I read on CBC online last week that the novel coronavirus is mutating. Can you tell us what that means for fighting the virus and for tracking it? Will the virus mutation help or hinder international efforts in dealing with COVID-19?
6:45 p.m.
President, Canadian Society for Virology
The virus is indeed mutating, but the good news about COVID too is that it's mutating far less than influenza, for example. The rate of mutation is pretty low. That does not mean there will not be consequences, because you need only one mutation to have a consequence.
For now, in terms of the mutations that have been identified, we don't know what the consequences are. We know there are two major strains. One is a mutation that started in Europe. The other is the original strain coming from China. It could impact the transmissibility. It could impact the effectiveness of a vaccine, if we develop it, but there is no way to predict that in advance. It's a possibility. It's low, but it's there.
6:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
As it turns out, that was more like a minute and a half than two minutes.
6:45 p.m.
Liberal
6:45 p.m.
Bloc
Luc Thériault Bloc Montcalm, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
My question is for Dr. Grandvaux. I'll try to be brief so she has time to answer.
We're being told that what we are doing now is time management, because there isn't a vaccine or an antiviral drug yet. We're starting to see serological testing, and we're realizing that tracing is important and screening alone isn't enough. Dr. Nemer said earlier that we've been playing catch-up.
Dr. Grandvaux, during one of your talks, you said that we were fighting an unknown enemy, and you said earlier that we had abandoned fundamental research.
At this point, what are the main lessons we should be drawing from this situation so we don't make the same mistakes?
6:45 p.m.
President, Canadian Society for Virology
That's a very good question.
It's important to continue funding research. The only way to fight an unknown enemy—in other words, the next virus—is to know as much as possible about many types of viruses. We have to let researchers work within the broadest scope possible without directing their work. When research is tethered, it necessarily goes in a specific direction. That means knowing what direction you're heading in, and that's not the case with an emerging future pandemic.
We must support a diversity of fundamental research and listen to the science. Numerous reports by the WHO and research institutes revealed that this risk was out there. The world didn't listen to researchers, in Canada or anywhere else. We have to learn from that. We have to let scientists keep a much more vigilant eye on emerging fields and give them the resources to respond.
6:45 p.m.
Bloc
Luc Thériault Bloc Montcalm, QC
Are you optimistic about the likelihood of finding a vaccine, or do you think we're going to have to live with this virus and do more research on antiviral drugs?
6:45 p.m.
President, Canadian Society for Virology
I believe in a vaccine. A tremendous amount of effort is being poured into it, and we will find one, but it's hard to say when.
I think antivirals are essential. I'll tell you outright that the basis of my own personal research is the development of broad-spectrum antiviral drugs, and there's a reason for that. Before you can deal with the next virus and find a vaccine, you have to know what it is. There will always be a time lag, but with antivirals and molecules, we can help people who have the virus while we wait for the vaccine. If we can use antivirals to relieve people's symptoms and reduce the virus's impact on patients, the wait for a vaccine will be much less frantic.
6:50 p.m.
Liberal
6:50 p.m.
NDP
Don Davies NDP Vancouver Kingsway, BC
Thank you.
Dr. Tam, as you know, long-term care homes account for over 80% of the deaths from COVID-19 in Canada. Why did the Public Health Agency of Canada wait until April 13 to release interim guidance for infection protection and control of COVID-19 in long-term care homes?
6:50 p.m.
Chief Public Health Officer, Public Health Agency of Canada
The fundamentals of infection prevention control have always been there; that's existing. Precautions, that's already well published. Managing viruses, such as coronavirus that spreads through the respiratory droplet route.... All that was available.
However, with the experience that was fundamental at the long-term care homes, a specific guidance hadn't existed at that time. It was a broader foundational guidance. We took the opportunity to get experts who have managed these situations to develop a guidance because it was going to be very helpful.
We also incorporated new evidence on the presymptomatic and asymptomatic transmission, which resulted in the recommendation of masking and personal protection equipment for the whole shift, which was also new at the time. The timing was to coincide with the evolving evidence as well.
May 19th, 2020 / 6:50 p.m.
NDP
Don Davies NDP Vancouver Kingsway, BC
Dr. Tam, in 2006 you co-authored a report on pandemic preparedness in Canada, titled, timely enough, “The Canadian Pandemic Influenza Plan for the Health Sector”. That document called for the Canadian government to make plans to ensure a consistent 16-week supply—that's two pandemic waves—of personal protective equipment, such as the N95 respirator masks, gowns, etc., specifically because your report acknowledged there would be shortages of the materials and supplies during the pandemic period. Yet, according to PHAC whistle-blowers on February 12, 2020, the national emergency stockpile included only 94,000 surgical masks, 100,000 N95 respirator masks, 400,000 face shields, etc. This is the equivalent of one week's worth of use in Ontario alone.
As chief public health officer of Canada, what accounts for this failure to ensure that Canada had a consistent 16-week supply of personal protective equipment prior to the outbreak of COVID-19, as you yourself identified and recommended in 2006?
6:50 p.m.
Chief Public Health Officer, Public Health Agency of Canada
Yes.
Absolutely, that is a Canadian pandemic influenza plan. The Canadian health system, as you know, is not just the federal, but provincial and territorial systems as well, and each of the provinces have their own stockpile. This is a recommendation for the country.
The national emergency stockpile system—
6:50 p.m.
NDP
Don Davies NDP Vancouver Kingsway, BC
With respect, it was for the Canadian government, Dr. Tam. You were recommending the Canadian government have a 16-week supply.
6:50 p.m.
Liberal
6:50 p.m.
Chief Public Health Officer, Public Health Agency of Canada
Again, the national emergency stockpile system went into full gear and to getting all the supplies we needed, and there was a global shortage. I think going forward, I would like to see support for the national emergency stockpile system and the public health system writ large. Given what we know about global supply, the Canadian public and the government can decide how much of this they would like us to actually stockpile going forward. We're going to learn a lot, as we've just said.
6:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
Thank you, Mr. Davies.
That brings round two to a close. We'll start round three at this point.
Ms. Jansen, please start. You have five minutes.
6:50 p.m.
Conservative
Tamara Jansen Conservative Cloverdale—Langley City, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'd like to direct my questions to Dr. Tam.
On January 31, Marnie Johnstone, executive director at PHAC, sent an email stating, “We have some stock in national emergency stockpile (incl stuff that is expiring in feb and March) that we are able to donate without compromising Cdn supply.”
We now know that Marnie Johnstone's assessment of our PPE needs in Canada was dead wrong. What modelling data was she using to suggest the donation would not compromise Canadian supply?