Evidence of meeting #82 for Health in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was ross.
A video is available from Parliament.
9:20 p.m.
Conservative
The Vice-Chair Conservative Stephen Ellis
Dr. Barrett, unfortunately we are out of time. I would suggest, as I've suggested other times, that you could provide that in writing. Thank you very much.
Thank you, Mr. Majumdar.
Colleagues, for the final five minutes of questioning we will turn to Dr. Hanley.
Dr. Hanley, you have the floor.
9:20 p.m.
Liberal
Brendan Hanley Liberal Yukon, YT
Thank you, Chair, and thank you to all of the witnesses for being here and also for their patience this evening as we get towards the end of this really interesting testimony.
Dr. Barrett, I'm going to stay with you for a while. Towards the end of your five-minute talk, you had started to touch on the need for post-market vaccine studies to better understand immunity to pandemic pathogens. Again, I'm thinking of how we are looking forward, how we are preparing for the next one.
I wonder if you can elaborate somewhat on that issue of what we need in terms of federal support and how this might relate to this bill.
9:20 p.m.
Physician-Researcher, As an Individual
Thanks for the question.
If we're trying to build a situation of preparedness, obviously vaccines are a key and core part of that, particularly for illnesses of pandemic potential. When we currently are licensing very safe vaccines in Canada—which we know we do—the part that we often forget about is that we have great vaccines, but we can always expect to raise the bar and make them better. One way to do that is to have the people involved in the manufacture and dissemination of our vaccines to provide us with studies of immunity and effectiveness in real time—and real immunity. That's really important for us in order to go forward in building a real science base that adds trust in vaccines—ups the ante not just to 80%, but to 90% and 100% effective—and in understanding what people need at an individual level. We can do that, potentially through a regulatory way, especially if we demand in our pandemic preparedness and prevention plan that vaccines be maximally effective, licensed and subsequently modified as we go along, so there's rapid access, but high standards for modification afterwards.
9:20 p.m.
Liberal
Brendan Hanley Liberal Yukon, YT
You mentioned trust. I again want to take you up on that a bit more. Despite the incredible success of the vaccine strategy, combined with the other application of public health strategies, we know there was a loss of trust in our population, and that's an enduring phenomenon we're seeing that spilled over into other areas.
Again, as we look at reviewing what we did with a view to looking forward, what do we see as the key elements to rebuild trust? If you could give me a 20-second or 30-second answer, then maybe I'll have time to switch over to Dr. Ross.
Thanks.
9:20 p.m.
Physician-Researcher, As an Individual
I'll be swift. I'm not a trust-building expert. However, I do think that very effective, directed, and transparent communications and decision-making are key. I think we've fallen a little bit into a situation where we often strategize too hard and worry too much about what we should or shouldn't say sometimes. I think timely and transparent communication doesn't always have to be the same message, but about just having transparency around decisions and how they're made and why they're going to change would have been very helpful, and will be helpful going forward, I think.
9:20 p.m.
Liberal
Brendan Hanley Liberal Yukon, YT
Dr. Ross, it's really good to see you. Thanks for your advocacy.
You, again, refer to the depleted workforce. I think of how we match that to the fact that we are in a pandemic era and that we're not necessarily insulated from another pandemic, just because we are still recovering from a recent one.
I wonder if you are looking ahead with some urgency to preparing and at the same time restoring our workforce. Could you give one or two most critical elements of being prepared for the next one? I think we have about 40 seconds left.
9:25 p.m.
President, Canadian Medical Association
Thank you. Through the chair, I'll try to be very quick.
PPE and vaccinations certainly made a huge difference in the pandemic, and as far as trust and trust-building go, we know that the most likely predictor of encouraging vaccine-hesitant people to get their vaccine was actually attachment to primary care.
As I look forward, I think Canada needs to have a hard look—and I hope the advisory committee would do that—at homegrown PPE, vaccines, medications, sustainable access to respirators, IV pumps, epidural catheters, all of those things that make our work as frontline health care providers possible. Having a close look at the impact of the basic income funding that came across and looking at social housing to support behaviours in self-isolation, these are all things that would support the work that we do as frontline health care providers.
9:25 p.m.
Conservative
The Vice-Chair Conservative Stephen Ellis
Thank you very much, Dr. Hanley and Dr. Ross.
It was a good try, Dr. Hanley, but unfortunately we're out of time.
Colleagues, I want to thank the witnesses for taking the time to appear to day and for sharing such valuable information.
I do understand that you probably had better things to do than listen to committee business, but I do thank you for your patience and for being here.
9:25 p.m.
NDP
Don Davies NDP Vancouver Kingsway, BC
On a point of order, Mr. Chair, we lost a lot of time with the witnesses. I'm just wondering if we could have the agreement of the committee to extend the meeting by 15 minutes.
9:25 p.m.
Conservative
The Vice-Chair Conservative Stephen Ellis
Mr. Davies, excuse me.
Please wait to be recognized by the chair, if you would. If we're going to have some decorum here....
9:25 p.m.
Conservative
The Vice-Chair Conservative Stephen Ellis
Yes, I understand that.
I do believe that Dr. Hanley had his hand up first. Thank you.
Dr. Hanley.
9:25 p.m.
Liberal
Brendan Hanley Liberal Yukon, YT
Fortunately, it's on a similar theme.
Mr. Chair, my point of order is that, given that we have a stellar line-up of witnesses and we did lose some time at the beginning, I wonder if the committee might indulge at least another round of questions to get the most out of this session.
9:25 p.m.
Conservative
The Vice-Chair Conservative Stephen Ellis
I will confer with the clerk to understand if we have more time. Thank you.
Thank you for that, colleagues. I understand that we have another 15 minutes available for translation.
If it's the will of the committee, we have time for one five-minute round each for the Conservatives and Liberals, and two and a half minutes each for the NDP and the Bloc Québécois.
Is it the will of the committee?
9:25 p.m.
Some hon. members
Agreed.
9:25 p.m.
Bloc
Luc Thériault Bloc Montcalm, QC
Mr. Chair, perhaps we should ask the witnesses, as a courtesy, if they also intend to stay.
9:25 p.m.
Conservative
The Vice-Chair Conservative Stephen Ellis
That's an excellent point, Mr. Thériault. Thank you for that.
In deference to our witnesses, if you have 15 more minutes, please indicate to me with a little wave, a hand up, thumbs up or something if you're willing to stay.
Excellent. We have the will and we do have the time.
As I said previously, we will now have five, five, two and a half, and two and a half.
We'll begin with the Conservatives and Dr. Kitchen.
You have the floor.
9:25 p.m.
Conservative
Robert Gordon Kitchen Conservative Souris—Moose Mountain, SK
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate the opportunity.
Again, thank you to the witnesses staying a little extra longer with us.
As I'm sure you're well aware, the BMJ has published a number of articles on Canada's response to the virus.
One of the quotes I will read to you states, “A national inquiry in 2023 is critical. Consistent with reports both before and after this pandemic, we call for a culture of data sharing that enables diverse use by a broader range of users.”
I'll start with you, Dr. Taillon.
Do you feel that this is a national inquiry that Bill C-293 would provide?
October 18th, 2023 / 9:25 p.m.
Professor and Associate Director of the Centre for Constitutional and Administrative Law Studies, Faculty of Law, Université Laval, As an Individual
No, this is not an investigation. Bill C‑293 is forward-looking. Unfortunately, I'm afraid it's a diversion to avoid making an assessment that would be desirable. Ultimately, it's up to each administration to do its own assessment.
I think the agency could, on its own initiative, learn from experiences it has had in recent years. I'm afraid that by trying to anticipate a future crisis, we're sparing ourselves the critical examination that should be done to answer questions that are nonetheless quite simple. For example, why was the federal government so slow to manage borders? Why was it so slow to remove border obstacles? Why was it so difficult for it to manage vaccine supplies? These are matters for which the federal government is directly responsible. These are the questions we need to prioritize.
9:30 p.m.
Conservative
Robert Gordon Kitchen Conservative Souris—Moose Mountain, SK
Thank you, Dr. Taillon. I appreciate that.
Dr. Ross, you talked a little bit about database collection. I just read in the article from the BMJ the fact that we weren't seeing that data sharing.
When I was on the health committee in 2020 when this first came about, we heard that a lot from the researchers throughout, continuously. It was that there's no data sharing. Silos are being created and those silos are keeping that data internally as opposed to sharing.
I know you believe that we need to share that data. It's very important to do that across this country.
The bill addresses it, but does it provide enough information to allow us to get that data sharing and break down those silos?
9:30 p.m.
President, Canadian Medical Association
I am a huge fan of breaking down what I like to call “cylinders of excellence" instead of “silos”. I think we have to have data sharing, an ability to share data across jurisdictions, even from community into acute care, so we can get to that practical research that's timely and can inform the needs of public health and public health service delivery.
I think the fragmentation of data we have, the lack of interoperability, even sometimes across the street, and being unable to access data for our patients harms patients. Access to data and interoperability will, in fact, save lives.
9:30 p.m.
Conservative
Robert Gordon Kitchen Conservative Souris—Moose Mountain, SK
Thank you for that.
Five of the reasons that were brought up about an independent national inquiry were to basically.... Sorry, it's tough for me; I only have a minute, so I won't be able to do it.
The reality is that having that independent national inquiry is such an important thing. Canadians have been asking for it. The ministers have said they will provide it, and we need to do that. Our concern is that this report is going to be substituted for that national inquiry.
I'm wondering if you would agree with that.
9:30 p.m.
President, Canadian Medical Association
I think that, no matter which route this committee decides to proceed with, we have to look forward. There are lessons that we definitely can learn from how the pandemic unfolded. There's zero question that this was an unprecedented-in-our-lifetime event, and we do need to look forward to prepare for the next and learn from our lessons of the past.
9:30 p.m.
Conservative
The Vice-Chair Conservative Stephen Ellis
Thank you very much, Dr. Kitchen and Dr. Ross.
We'll now turn to Dr. Powlowski, and I understand that you'll split your time with Mr. Fisher.
Dr. Powlowski, you have the floor.