A private member’s bill that calls for the federal government to appoint a committee to self-review its own pandemic response, was sent to second reading on Feb. 8 by a House of Commons vote.
The majority of Liberal, NDP, and Green MPs voted for the bill, while most Conservative and Bloc MPs voted against it, for a final count of 176 to 142.
When Liberal MP Nathaniel Erskine-Smith proposed Bill C-293 last summer, he said it would require the federal health minister to establish an advisory committee “to prevent the risk of, and prepare for, future pandemics and to promote transparency and accountability toward that goal.”
But critics of the bill say it’s an attempt to “whitewash” the government’s pandemic mismanagement, which they say instead requires an independent public inquiry.
“If a minister chooses who sits on the [proposed] advisory council, then obviously they are going to be tempted to appoint people who share their pre-existing philosophy and who are not necessarily going to dig into providing the kind of criticism that is required of the government’s approach,” he said.
Bloc Quebecois (BQ) MP Marie-Hélène Gaudreau also criticized the bill in debate, saying “An independent public inquiry is the only acceptable way to judge the government’s actions.”
“In order to shed light on the complete chain of events, we need to calmly hold an independent, transparent national inquiry, without partisanship, by opening a constructive dialogue with the various stakeholders,” she said.
British Columbia NDP MP Bonita Zarillo called the bill “an unacceptable attempt to provide the illusion of action, accountability, and oversight with respect to Canada’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic.”
She said what was really needed is “a root-to-branch, independent, penetrating and comprehensive review of Canada’s COVID-19 preparedness and response.”
Bloc Quebecois MP Julia Vignola joined other MPS calling for an “independent public inquiry” to ensure “an unbiased, non-partisan analysis.”
She noted the bill “calls for an advisory committee to study the “before” and “during” and make recommendations, yet the bill already includes a whole list of things that a plan must include.”
“What is the point of recommendations if the plan’s contents have already been decided?” she asked.
Conservative MP Ted Falk said a government review was “like having the fox guard the henhouse,” and that the feds “all have a very vested interest in the outcome.”
‘Merit in Principle’
Erskine-Smith responded to critics noting it was a private member’s bill, and that the House “should not kill a bill at second reading that has merit in principle.” He said the point of the bill is “parliamentary accountability.”In May 2022 he abstained from voting on a Conservative Party motion to lift pandemic travel restrictions. He said he couldn’t vote in favour of the motion, as he didn’t support the dropping of the mask mandate in airplanes, but that other measures supported by his party such as vaccine mandates were “no longer justified.”
The MP also criticized his own government about transparency over COVID restrictions. “Nothing about the re-evaluation of travel-related measures has been transparent. It is not clear what Dr. Tam’s recommendations are, and there’s been no adequate justification provided for continuing the exclusive two-dose mandate,” he said.
