Health Committee on Oct. 18th, 2023

[Patrick Taillon]

Most importantly, there should be a review, an assessment or an inquiry into how the federal government has exercised its powers. I fear that the bill is a diversion to avoid doing this review, assessment or inquiry. I'm afraid it will take us somewhere else, either to repetition or unnecessary legislation, since these are things we can already do.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Stephen Ellis]

Thank you very much.

I'm sorry, Monsieur Taillon, but that's the time.

Colleagues, we will now turn to Dr. Powlowski.

You have the floor for five minutes.

[Marcus Powlowski, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

I will start by addressing this question to Dr. Barrett.

Looking at the recent pandemics, COVID started in Wuhan; HIV/AIDS—I think that would be classified as a pandemic—started, we believe, in Africa; and H1N1 started in China or Mexico, but I'm not sure whether we know that for sure. Of the other outbreaks that we worried could become pandemics, MERS was in the Middle East, Ebola was in West Africa and SARS was in Guangdong, China.

In looking at how we can better prepare to prevent future pandemics, would you agree that we need to be better globally at detecting outbreaks of disease in poor countries early on and responding to them more quickly, before they become pandemics?

[Dr. Lisa Barrett]

There are two pieces to that.

If there's one thing we have reinforced for the general public, governments and medical practitioners, among other people, it's that the planet is very small and, unfortunately, very diverse in terms of resources. To your point, yes, we need to support countries that are still in a developing state with more resources to do effective and directed surveillance of what's happening in their countries.

However, to be frank—coming back to some of the comments earlier about taking away the power of people to be autonomous as entities, whether that's a country or a province—I think it's important to note this: No one is suggesting people shouldn't have autonomy, but there should be base standards and science used to determine what the base standards are.

It would be useful and helpful for a bill like this not only to provide direction around capacity-building for global surveillance but also to set some standards for what the science would suggest is a base standard. I guess it's not just generating the data but also sharing and using it in a way that generates base equivalence, so people don't come from have and have-not states, provinces or countries—as humans.

[Marcus Powlowski, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

Thank you, Dr. Barrett.

It seems you agree that we want, both as a country and globally, to do better, so poor countries are able to detect and respond early on to outbreaks of infectious disease.

I have talked to Nate, the sponsor of the bill, about adding language that would ensure that Canada explores international legal agreements and includes, in those negotiations, consideration of legal instruments and potentially mandatory financial mechanisms. This would ensure rich countries provide under-resourced countries some of the funds they need to better detect and respond to infectious disease.

Should that be one of the things Canada is obligated to do? Is that what we're looking at in this bill—entering negotiations with other countries on how we can help poor countries have the capacity to detect and respond to outbreaks earlier?

[Dr. Lisa Barrett]

The mechanism for doing that is certainly beyond my scope of expertise.

I think it is very important to say that it's absolutely needed, and to be deliberate about wording in a bill that makes us an excellent global partner. Understanding that those would be durable and practically implementable would be important. I will leave the “how” of that to people who do this for a living. I'm absolutely sure that's not me.

However, the need for that is definitely present, as well as the need to build and guide science globally.

[Marcus Powlowski, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

Kathleen, in our brief time, do you wish to respond to any of that?

[Dr. Kathleen Ross]

I would agree.

The CMA recognizes that equitable global access, particularly to vaccines, is a valuable public health tool. Again, though, where and how that gets implemented is outside the scope of CMA recommendations. Certainly, ensuring we are meeting our requirements as far as human rights obligations go is well within this bill, I believe.

Alongside this, it's about recognizing and understanding that access to basic primary care services around the world is lacking, and that investing in primary care is investing in preventative care. It's about getting to patients before they get sick and resort to overburdened emergency departments, or are unable to seek care before they infect others. These are critical pieces.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Stephen Ellis]

Thank you very much, Dr. Ross and Dr. Powlowski.

Colleagues, seeing the clock and looking at the calculations we have done, I'll be clear: Monsieur Thériault, you will have two and a half minutes; Mr. Davies, you will have two and a half minutes; Mr. Majumdar, you will have five minutes; and Dr. Hanley, we'll finish with you for five minutes.

Mr. Thériault, you have the floor for two and a half minutes.

[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?

[Melissa Matlow]

If I understood correctly, the question is, what do we think of criticisms by farmers who are concerned about the language used with respect to antibiotics?

I can sympathize with farmers who are concerned about the stresses and challenges they face producing food for our country, but I think the science is clear. Here I have a pile of reports that cite the drivers of pandemic risk. I think we need to be listening to the experts on this and looking for solutions so that we can save antibiotics and protect life-saving drugs for people and for animals. I think it's one of the biggest health crises that we're going to face. It's a silent pandemic.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

However, Chicken Farmers of Canada says that, currently, their strategy on the responsible use of antimicrobials is based on key elements such as reduction, surveillance, management, research and innovation to meet consumer expectations and protect the health and well-being of poultry.

Do you agree with them?

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Stephen Ellis]

Thank you very much, Mr. Thériault.

I'll have to advise, Ms. Matlow, once again that you provide a message in writing, please. Thank you.

Mr. Davies, you have the floor for two and a half minutes.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Thank you.

To World Animal Protection, your submission states the following, “the Netherlands has expedited a permanent ban on fur farming to prevent further COVID-19 outbreaks and the German Federal Parliament has agreed to reduce the trade in wild animals for pets, ban the sale of wild caught animals and set up a centralized trade register.” Would you suggest Canada act in a similar fashion? If so, why?

[Michèle Hamers]

Absolutely. Currently there is very poor data collection on which wild animals are coming in. We don't know their history, and there's very little biosecurity at the border. We need a comprehensive, detailed dataset to analyze risks. What animals are coming in? What are the risks? What is their life history? Are they wild-caught? What kind of biosecurity risk do they bring with them?

At the moment we don't have this. All of the departments are siloed. They all have a different piece of the puzzle, and that's been acknowledged. We had a meeting earlier today. They need a more holistic mandate to approach this issue, because we're talking about an enormous trade that is happening and an enormous number of animals coming into our country, which we're not monitoring.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Finally, how does climate change and loss of biodiversity increase the risk of pandemics?

[Michèle Hamers]

When animals are stressed, whether it's in captive conditions or in the wild, and when we encroach on their habitats, they are being forced to interact with each other, which might not have happened before. They come into situations where the disease pressures are rising and they come more in contact with people. That's where that interface happens, so when we don't protect their natural habitats, when we encroach on them it increases the risk of pandemics and of zoonotic diseases' emergence and their spread.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Thank you.

I anticipate that the chair is going to tell me I have very little time.

Dr. Barrett, do you think we should have an independent national inquiry searching to get at the bottom and learn lessons from the way we handled COVID-19?

[Dr. Lisa Barrett]

I think there are already probably some mechanisms to do that within the organizations that exist. Should there be a review of what has happened from a comprehensive perspective that focuses on a go-forward plan as opposed to a blame game? I would love to see that happen. I think there have been many successes and many challenges along the way. We're coming to a time when everyone's fatigued and trying to ignore the fact that we still have risks, and it's a really difficult behavioural time for people. I think a very well done review and constructive process forward would be very helpful.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Stephen Ellis]

Thank you, Mr. Davies and Dr. Barrett.

We're at the last two rounds of questions.

Mr. Majumdar, you have the floor for five minutes.

[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?

[Dr. Lisa Barrett]

That's not directly or exactly related to the bill, but I'm happy to take up the rhetoric and start with a response to the question that I think was there and address a little bit the leap of logic in the middle.

There are just as many studies that suggest that in certain settings and during certain points in the pandemic, masks were valuable at community levels and, particularly, not just for children, but also for people in very vulnerable situations. Yes, the recommendations I was making and am including now for acute care settings, where there are vulnerable persons who are still vulnerable, I would definitely defend.... I don't know that I needed to defend it.

Do I think the science supports continued masking in certain situations to prevent airborne and/or droplet borne diseases? I do.

To step back for a moment to address your gap between mental health and the pandemic being associated fully with masks, that clearly is a mistake because there were a myriad of things that developed many mental health issues regardless if people lived in countries, provinces or areas where masks were mandated or not. That's a multifactorial issue, but I do appreciate your asking the question.

[Shuv Majumdar, Conservative, Calgary Heritage, AB]

Thank you for your response.

The survey stated that “For children between the ages of six and 14, 70 per cent of parents reported their child’s mental health is 'worse' than before the pandemic.” A large portion of this is cited as being due to the “lost access to natural outlets for stress and anxiety—such as sports and after-school activities” due to these restrictions.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, the Toronto Star featured angry quotes about the unvaccinated on the front page, including on August 26, 2021, with the bold sentence “I have no empathy left for the willfully unvaccinated. Let them die.”Justin Trudeau added to the divisive rhetoric, saying “They don’t believe in science/progress and are very often misogynistic and racist”.... This leads us, as a leader and as a country, to make a choice: Do we tolerate these people?"

Dr. Barrett, do you agree with those sentiments?

[Dr. Lisa Barrett]

Again, it's not specifically about the bill, but I could link it to the bill.

I think that having pieces of misinformation and disinformation out there like that, particularly around vaccination, is part of the issue. If this bill can actually develop a process where science is promoted, as well as the dissemination of science in a trustful way, we could probably get rid of a lot of those statements. Those are not statements I would support, and I think it's a demonstration of overt mis- and disinformation from certain individuals. Hopefully, we can get beyond that and maybe there's some use for a bill like this to promote it.

[Shuv Majumdar, Conservative, Calgary Heritage, AB]

I'm stunned that such an evolution of thinking has not taken place given the impact of the decisions that were made during the pandemic.

Were the lockdowns valuable, Dr. Barrett? These mandates forced businesses to only have a few customers in at a time.

Do you really think this was an effective pandemic approach?