A federal initiative established during the COVID-19 pandemic to compensate individuals who suffered serious and permanent vaccine injuries, known as the Vaccine Injury Support Program (VISP), is facing significant criticism from opposition parties, who label it as “failing” and a “breach of trust.” A comprehensive five-month investigation by Global News gathered insights from over 30 interviews, including employees from Oxaro (the firm managing VISP), affected claimants, and legal representatives. The findings raised concerns about the capability of Oxaro to fulfill the program’s objectives, questioned the decision by the Public Health Agency of Canada (PHAC) to select Oxaro over other options, and revealed internal documents indicative of initial poor planning.
As of December 2023, Health Canada recorded 11,702 serious adverse events linked to COVID-19 vaccinations, representing a minuscule fraction of the total doses administered. Conservative MP Matt Strauss, who is also a critical care physician, expressed disappointment regarding the compensation process, noting that less than half of the roughly 3,000 claims submitted have been processed. He highlighted the disparity between government assurances of comprehensive support for vaccine-related injuries and the current reality, stating, “It’s shocking, it’s not right. It’s a breach of trust,” echoing sentiments voiced by interim NDP Leader Don Davies regarding the program’s shortcomings.
The VISP, announced by then-Prime Minister Justin Trudeau in December 2020, was designed to assist those affected by any Health Canada-authorized vaccine. Individuals deemed eligible could receive lump-sum payments, income support, and reimbursements for medical expenses. However, instead of being administered directly by the government as seen in countries like the U.S. and U.K., the program was outsourced to Oxaro, leading to immediate challenges post-launch. Reports from claimants indicated mounting frustrations with the lack of timely and fair access to support, fostering feelings of neglect and hopelessness.
In response to inquiries about the handling of claims, Oxaro emphasized that the program is new and was operating under unexpectedly high application volumes. They asserted that operational adjustments were made to meet demand, acknowledging, however, that the complexity of claims affects processing times. Each claim is subject to individual assessment by medical experts, who review relevant medical documentation to establish any potential connection between the vaccine and reported injuries. Concurrently, PHAC is reviewing Oxaro’s performance and contract ahead of a renewal next year, signaling an ongoing evaluation of the program’s effectiveness.
Kerry Bowman, a bioethicist at the University of Toronto, echoed concerns that the mismanagement of VISP could intensify vaccine hesitancy. He argued the message conveyed is alarming: not only are there individuals resistant to vaccination, but those affected by adverse events might find support lacking. This scenario poses a significant dilemma for public health, as trust in health programs could erode further, fueling apprehension about vaccinations amid a critical public health initiative.
Comparisons between VISP and the controversial ArriveCan app surfaced in discussions led by Strauss and Davies, who called for greater transparency and accountability in both programs. They emphasized the recurring issues of the Liberal government’s reliance on external consultants over direct ministry management, arguing for a shift back to public servants handling such essential services. Davies pointed to the broader implications of perpetual outsourcing, advocating for the reinstatement of direct accountability from government officials to ensure that the needs of Canadians, particularly vulnerable vaccine injury claimants, are met effectively and compassionately.
