Are you certain of that?
Evidence of meeting #33 for Health in the 43rd Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was chair.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Evidence of meeting #33 for Health in the 43rd Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was chair.
A recording is available from Parliament.
1:55 p.m.
Chief Public Health Officer, Public Health Agency of Canada
—vaccines, by the way, that interval enhances the immune response, so—
1:55 p.m.
Conservative
Michelle Rempel Conservative Calgary Nose Hill, AB
Does that include Pfizer?
If I have a four-month dosing delay, will I have an enhanced immune response by having my second dose four months later?
2 p.m.
Chief Public Health Officer, Public Health Agency of Canada
It generally does not diminish the response of that second dose, so you don't have to repeat a dose just because of delay.
Whether you need another dose as a result over time.... I think Pfizer studied people who have had the recommended schedule in terms of over time.
2 p.m.
Conservative
Michelle Rempel Conservative Calgary Nose Hill, AB
Just for clarity, there is a Globe and Mail article out right now that says that immunity may wane with an extended dosing interval between doses one and two. Are you not concerned that there would be a requirement for additional doses, or reduced immunity?
2 p.m.
Chief Public Health Officer, Public Health Agency of Canada
We are always watching for reduced immunity in that interval. That is being watched closely, but it is does not diminish the impact of the second dose. What will change recommendations of whether it's one or two doses is whether there is a need, after two doses, to get another booster. That is actually a different question.
2 p.m.
Conservative
2 p.m.
Chief Public Health Officer, Public Health Agency of Canada
We don't know yet.
2 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
Thank you, Ms. Rempel Garner.
We go now to Mr. Van Bynen. Mr. Van Bynen, please go ahead for five minutes.
2 p.m.
Liberal
Tony Van Bynen Liberal Newmarket—Aurora, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to our witnesses for taking the time to meet with us again.
All of you have been very busy leading us through the pandemic. I wanted to let you know that your time is valued and appreciated.
Leading us through this pandemic has required using science-based evidence from the start. Dealing with this new virus meant that as we learned more about it, our approach and our response changed and adapted accordingly. That is science and that is what using science-based evidence requires.
Canada is home to world-class scientists and public health experts, some of whom are with us today. Their research has played, and continues to play, a vital role in building and evolving our understanding of COVID-19. There's no doubt that we need to continue to support and invest in our scientific community.
Minister, could you tell us about the work that the federal government is doing to support COVID-19 research and our scientific community here in Canada?
2 p.m.
Liberal
Patty Hajdu Liberal Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON
Thank you very much.
I'll just say that one of the world-leading experts on infectious disease that we are so fortunate to have is Dr. Theresa Tam. Thank you, Dr. Tam, for your hard work over the last many months and indeed for your expertise.
You're absolutely right, MP Van Bynen. I'll just say that this government firmly believes that science and research investment—not just in the context of a pandemic, by the way, but certainly accelerated by it—is incredibly important to the health and safety of Canadians. In particular, health research helps unlock many mysteries, reduces suffering and helps Canadians have healthier lives now and into the future.
That's why we've made historic investments of over $10 billion since 2015. We had a long ways to catch up after the previous government and the ongoing attacks on science, both from a financial perspective and from a destruction of evidence perspective, if you can believe it, Mr. Chair.
We're been working with provinces and territories. We've been leveraging the expertise of virologists, immunologists and other experts all around the country who have stepped up—many times in voluntary ways—to help the Government of Canada and the provincial governments have the best possible response to COVID-19. We led a rapid and unprecedented response to COVID-19 through the CIHR. I'll never forget that early announcement in February of 2020 in Montreal with some of my colleagues. That was within weeks of COVID-19 appearing on the world stage. Obviously, it took just several weeks to get in order.
Of course, budget 2021, if passed, would provide a further $2.2 billion to grow our domestic life sciences sector.
It is really about an ongoing and sustained investment, Mr. Chair, in research, science, the science community and in generating that next crop of researchers and scientists. The many investments we've made through my colleague Minister Qualtrough's department, ESDC, focus on ensuring that Canadians have access to post-secondary and integrated learning opportunities that will foster the next crop of researchers.
Thank you very much.
2 p.m.
Liberal
Tony Van Bynen Liberal Newmarket—Aurora, ON
Thank you, Minister.
Over the last few meetings, we've heard from witnesses representing different organizations that work with the most vulnerable in our society. Among them are those for whom safely isolating at home isn't an option. We've all heard heartbreaking stories of multi-generational households where one member contracts COVID-19 in the workplace and transmits the virus to their family members. For these individuals, isolating safely at home is not an option.
Minister, I have two questions. Why is it important for Canadians to have a safe place to isolate? How is the federal government helping Canadians in these situations?
2:05 p.m.
Liberal
Patty Hajdu Liberal Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON
That's such an important observation. What we do at the community level matters, so understanding communities and the limitations families have in safely isolating was a very important to our government early on. We knew that communities would do the hard work if they had the financial resources in place to provide spaces for folks who couldn't isolate well.
I'll use a personal example from my own community of Thunder Bay, Ontario. Dr. Powlowski will recognize this. When we had a significant surge a while ago, it was indeed among a group of people who are very marginally housed. When people think of folks who are experiencing homelessness, they often think of absolute homelessness—that there are shelters and nothing else. However, we know that people intersect with family and have roommates. There are all kinds of situations, because people are essentially trying to avoid shelters. They are really a last resort in someone's life.
Very quickly it became clear that our community's spread was being driven by folks who were very vulnerably housed and that what would help the community was isolation housing, so that if someone was living in a situation with multiple family members or roommates and couldn't physically isolate, they would have the space to do so and would be supported to stay in place. Of course, just sticking someone in a room isn't good enough. They need to have access to food and in some cases medical support and counselling, as well as the variety of other things they need in their day-to-day lives. People also need to be monitored if they've come into contact or are sick with COVID-19, because their condition can worsen.
When I say that COVID-19 is a lot of work, that is just a snapshot of the kind work that communities are putting in to help protect vulnerable people and stop the spread. Isolation housing has been an important part of that.
We allocated $100 million to municipalities and health regions so they could in fact have space to do the hard work but not worry about the money that it would cost to rent, clean and staff locations. It's another example of the federal government stepping up for local communities to help them stay focused on community transmission.
2:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
Thank you, Mr. Van Bynen.
Mr. Thériault, you have the floor for two and a half minutes.
2:05 p.m.
Bloc
Luc Thériault Bloc Montcalm, QC
Dr. Strong, let us agree on the figures.
The proposed budget for the Canadian Institutes of Health Research has been reduced by 22.6% compared to last year. It is true that that reflects an increase of 4.3% compared to 2019. However, why not maintain the budget at the 2020-2021 level, a little more than $1.6 billion, knowing that we have to support research, because it is critical for the years to come?
2:05 p.m.
President, Canadian Institutes of Health Research
I can give a further clarification on that question.
There are really two issues at hand here. The budget for research, in and of itself, for the CIHR to support all—
2:05 p.m.
Bloc
Luc Thériault Bloc Montcalm, QC
I understood that, Dr. Strong, I am going to let you answer but I do not have a lot of time.
I am well aware that you have reduced certain expenses. I am not asking you which ones or to explain to me how things work. I am actually asking you why, given the situation that we are experiencing, you did not keep the budget at the same level by injecting that difference into basic research, which is so important for the years to come. That's my question.
2:05 p.m.
President, Canadian Institutes of Health Research
First, there have been no cuts to the budget of CIHR. The dollars that you are specifically asking about were one-time investments for an immediate response to the pandemic, such as the measures that the minister referred to within weeks of the declaration. These were one-time investments, not a cut to the budget in and of itself.
2:10 p.m.
Bloc
Luc Thériault Bloc Montcalm, QC
You are actually giving me a civil service answer, and I have no problem with that.
What I know is that the government decided to spend $1.6 billion last year, but this year it's only going to spend $1.2 billion, in round numbers. You are telling me that additional expenditures were targeted to respond to the pandemic. However, we are still in the middle of the pandemic and basic research has always been the poor cousin in terms of investments. We have lost a lot of good minds over the years, and we must not repeat the errors of the past.
I was not trying to find out how the budget is broken down, but why there is no recommendation or inclination in favour of basic research. Why not have maintained that budget at its previous level, especially since we are still in the middle of the pandemic?
I suspect you will give me a civil service answer and I have no need for it.
2:10 p.m.
President, Canadian Institutes of Health Research
Mr. Chair, might I be allowed to answer that question?
2:10 p.m.
Liberal
2:10 p.m.
President, Canadian Institutes of Health Research
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
The budget mains that the members are looking at do not include the substantive investments that have just been made by the government in ongoing research, including clinical trials and research networks to support biomanufacturing. These numbers will look considerably different as those investments are included, and they are multi-year.
2:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
Thank you, Dr. Strong, and thank you, Mr. Thériault.
We go now to Mr. Davies. Mr. Davies, you have two and a half minutes, please.