Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you to our witnesses.
Dr. Taillon, your comments were very enlightening. Clause 2 of the bill talks about the purpose of the proposed act, which is to “prevent the risk of and prepare for future pandemics”.
The function of the committee that it's trying to structure is as follows: The function of the advisory committee is to make recommendations for the improvement, throughout Canada, of preparedness efforts and response capabilities in relation to disease outbreaks in order to reduce the risks associated with future pandemics.
I'm sure, Dr. Taillon, you're well aware that the Public Health Agency of Canada was structured in 2004 after the SARS epidemic to do exactly what I've just quoted. In fact, when we look at the Public Health Agency's function, its function is to provide health promotion, health surveillance, health protection, population assessment, emergency preparedness responses and to “focus on preventing disease and injuries, responding to public health threats, promoting good physical and mental health and providing information to support informed decision-making.”
Not only are they doing that, they have also doing it with a budget in 2022-23 of $7,439,195,456 just for infectious disease prevention and control, not to mention the $404,242,000 for health promotion and chronic disease prevention.
If all of this is in place with the Public Health Agency of Canada to do what this bill is proposing, do you feel that this bill is supportive of that, or do we need to get rid of the Public Health Agency of Canada?