Evidence of meeting #35 for Health in the 43rd Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was pandemic.
A recording is available from Parliament.
1:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
Thank you, Mr. Barlow.
We go now to Ms. Sidhu. Go ahead, please, for three minutes.
1:45 p.m.
Liberal
Sonia Sidhu Liberal Brampton South, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to all the witnesses for joining us today.
My question is for Dr. Schwartz.
I come from Brampton, a community that has been the hardest hit in the entire province. We have seen the terrible impacts of the virus on our communities, workers, families, neighbours and residents. Have you provided any advice to the Ontario government that could have prevented the third wave?
1:50 p.m.
Co-Chair, Ontario Science Advisory Table
Thank you, Ms. Sidhu.
I very much feel for the Brampton community. It has been very severely impacted.
The science table watched with concern what was going on in Great Britain over the course of December and January. We were looking at the B.1.1.7 variant and how it affected Britain and western Europe.
Looking forward and in trying to prevent a fourth wave, the idea of keeping restrictions as restrictive as possible for as long as possible is a very important principle. As we said, reducing the number of essential workplaces and reducing mobility.... It's very hard to look back. I certainly feel for decision-makers who have a number of factors to take into account beyond the science of public health, like the economy and so on. I wouldn't want to second-guess the decisions that were made.
Looking forward, it's very important for us at this point to continue the lockdown as long as possible, to allow the vaccine to take effect.
1:50 p.m.
Liberal
Sonia Sidhu Liberal Brampton South, ON
Dr. Schwartz, did you give advice to them? Have they taken your advice?
1:50 p.m.
Co-Chair, Ontario Science Advisory Table
We'll find out. The advice that I spoke to—the six points—are in the public domain. Again, there are a number of factors in making very important decisions. They have to make decisions one way or another on a lot of evolving evidence and a lot of grey evidence that will impact what happens going forward.
What I can say is that the targeted vaccine will, I hope, reduce the transmission quicker than it would have if it had been rolled out on a per capita basis. Keeping the public health measures in place for a longer period of time will allow that vaccine effectiveness to take effect on a population basis.
1:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
Thank you, Ms. Sidhu.
We'll go to Mr. Maguire now. You have three minutes, please.
May 7th, 2021 / 1:50 p.m.
Conservative
Larry Maguire Conservative Brandon—Souris, MB
Thank you, Chair.
My colleague, Mr. Généreux, has a question to ask. I'll let him go ahead.
1:50 p.m.
Conservative
Bernard Généreux Conservative Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I thank my colleague for giving me the opportunity to ask a question. Actually, the question goes to all the witnesses.
As you know, Quebec was hit harder at the beginning of the pandemic last year. This was due to the fact that we had spring break earlier than other provinces, but also because we were close to the North American epicentre of the pandemic, New York State.
In light of that, do you think it would have been a good idea for the government to immediately stop all air and land border crossings, including those by the passenger buses that frequently travel between the two countries? Should the government have acted quickly to do that?
I'm referring to one of the witnesses who said earlier that the government was not prepared for the pandemic, unlike other countries such as Australia or New Zealand. After all, we should have learned from the SARS outbreak we had previously experienced.
So should we have acted sooner?
1:50 p.m.
As an Individual
I'm happy to go first.
Very quickly, in response to the question, the answer is yes, absolutely. I think a variety of measures, including earlier border closure measures, would have been of assistance.
Quebec's timing with regard to its March break and the return of snowbirds and so on, was very unfortunate. Ontario had a similar experience.
If we had taken more seriously all the evidence in front of our eyes about the spread of COVID-19 globally and had been willing to act on that, Canada could have been in a much better position to protect itself nationally and provincially by, at the very latest, the end of February, if not earlier than that, and certainly not having to wait to go into mid-March before we took real action.
1:55 p.m.
Conservative
Bernard Généreux Conservative Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC
Why did the government not take those steps? Can you answer that question? Why did the government not act more quickly?
1:55 p.m.
As an Individual
This is a great mystery that we have to get to the heart of, and I hope, as Ms. Rempel suggested, that there will really be a serious, across-the-board, lessons-learned exercise. I haven't seen any sign that it's going to take place yet. We've had ad hoc efforts to learn some lessons.
At the heart of it, I think there was a systemic failure. We didn't have the structures in place to deal with the information that was coming to us.
Secondly, there was a failure of imagination. Those of you who are familiar with the 9-11 commission report out of the United States will recognize that term. It is that we knew, and should have known, that pandemics could hit us and could hit us hard. We knew that, but we didn't believe it.
Now, why is that? That gap, that failure of imagination, is a profound issue that somehow needs to be addressed going forward.
1:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
Thank you, Mr. Généreux.
We'll go now to Dr. Powlowski.
Dr. Powlowski, please go ahead for three minutes.
1:55 p.m.
Liberal
Marcus Powlowski Liberal Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON
I'm a little confused by the order here.
There's an embarrassment of riches on this panel. There are so many people I'd like to ask questions of.
Lorian, sorry. I can't get to you.
Dr. Wark, too, that was great testimony.
Dr. Schwartz, I'm going to put you on the spot a little because I have a bit of a bone to pick with the science council, and that's over the issue of the use of monoclonal antibodies by infectious disease people in Ontario who certainly want to use them.
There have been a couple of randomized controlled trials with the use of bamlanivimab—which our government bought 40 million dollars' worth of—published in pretty good journals, such as JAMA and the New England Journal of Medicine, showing a benefit when used early in high-risk people.
Another recent case-control study in Clinical Infectious Diseases showed that you needed to treat eight people to prevent one person being admitted to the hospital.
With bamlanivimab, I know the FDA changed its approval, but for the variants we have in Ontario, it still works on 90% to 92% of people.
With the whole bunch of new monoclonal antibody combinations, they're still waiting for approval by Health Canada, but there have been a number of studies, not yet published, in which manufacturers have shown pretty good evidence for a 70% to 80% reduction in hospitalization, again when used early in high-risk individuals.
In fact, a recent GlaxoSmithKline study of their monoclonal antibody had to be stopped early because it was considered unethical to continue the study because of the decrease in hospitalization.
Despite this, infectious disease people in Ontario, 12 of whom I recently wrote an op-ed with, who want to use monoclonal antibodies, can't get hold of it. Why is that?
It would seem that there are a few influential people who aren't elected, some of whom sit on the science table, who feel that there's not enough evidence for the use. What I would question is that these are non-elected people—these are a few infectious disease people—yet why should they have the power to control what other infectious disease people use as therapeutics? Therefore, I'm kind of questioning whether the science table is really serving the public in giving some advice.
Thank you.
1:55 p.m.
Co-Chair, Ontario Science Advisory Table
Thank you, Dr. Powlowski.
Mr. Chair, I'd like to take that question back, if that's okay, given the time and given my relative lack of expertise in infectious diseases and therapeutics.
We have a drugs and biologics working group that is looking at that. I appreciate the question and can get back to you through the clerk, if that's acceptable.
2 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
Thank you, Doctor.
To all the witnesses, if you have any further information you wish to share with the committee, please send it to the clerk. The clerk will ensure that it is translated and distributed appropriately to the committee.
Ms. Gaudreau, you now have the floor for one and a half minutes.
2 p.m.
Bloc
Marie-Hélène Gaudreau Bloc Laurentides—Labelle, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
We are trying to find out what happened between January 7 and March 7. I will tell you: we were distracted by parliamentary sparring. Since my party is the only one that doesn't want to take power, I can say these things. When parliamentary sparring predominates, it takes time to act when crises like the one we experienced arise.
Earlier, I heard my colleague say that, with respect to COVID-19 transmission, the border was involved in only 2% of cases.
Mr. Wark, I don't understand how you can say, all at once, that the government didn't act swiftly enough, that a variant came in from another country, and that managing the border is not that important.
I'd like to hear your opinion on that.
2 p.m.
Bloc
Marie-Hélène Gaudreau Bloc Laurentides—Labelle, QC
There is a lag because of the interpretation. I hope those few seconds won't count in my speaking time.
2 p.m.
As an Individual
I'll be very brief.
It's a complex issue. I don't think it's properly understood. I'm not sure that CBSA and the government are doing a great service in treating the issue as they are.
The question is not just how many people come across the border with a variant that might be an issue. It's not a statistical question. It's a question of understanding how people crossing a border through various transportation nodes might be spreaders. We don't have the answer to that and I think we have to proceed very cautiously. We don't have the answer because we're not doing enough contact tracing and we're not doing enough testing.
I think the prudential thing is to say this is a bigger problem than the statistics suggest. We have to act prudentially in that regard.
2 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
Thank you, Ms. Gaudreau.
We'll go now to Mr. Davies.
Mr. Davies, go ahead for a minute and a half.
2 p.m.
NDP
Don Davies NDP Vancouver Kingsway, BC
Thank you.
Dr. Hardcastle, I have some quick questions and hope you'll be able to give me quick answers.
In your view, does the current COVID pandemic in Canada meet the definition of being a national emergency under the Emergencies Act?
2 p.m.
Associate Professor, Faculty of Law and Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, As an Individual
Yes, absolutely. It's a disease. It's threatening human health. It's threatening supply chains. There is no question.