Health Committee on March 5th, 2021

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

If I may, Clerk, that would be just one hour available on Monday, not two?

[The Clerk]

QP is at two o'clock.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Yes, of course.

[The Clerk]

We'd have to end there so that members would be available to attend QP.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

I would like to jump in here and comment, Mr. Davies.

The Standing Order 106(4) process does not give the committee any extra powers. We're still bound by the motions we pass. We're still bound by the House motions and so forth. Standing Order 106(4) is only about getting a meeting called. When we're in that meeting, what we do in that meeting is bound by our routine motions and any other motions we pass.

After that clarification, we'll go to Mike.

Mr. Kelloway, please go ahead.

[Mike Kelloway, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

Thanks, Chair. I appreciate it.

This is a really good discussion. I thank MP Davies for his comments, and MP Thériault. I would also like to thank Michelle Rempel Garner for some clarification as well.

For me, on Monday an hour.... I would rather have two hours for this particular topic. I think it's really important. I also don't want to bump anyone in the process. We have some consensus among my colleagues, or at least I think we do, that we don't want to bump people. That's really encouraging.

If we could look at a time that's two hours, whether after the minister on Friday or during break week or after the break week, I think that would be really important. I think we could do a deeper dive in two hours. When you look at it, usually by the time we get some things checked, it's about five to 10 minutes—10 minutes may be pushing it, but it's at least five to eight—before you get the sound checks in, or if somebody arrives late or whatever the case may be.

It is an urgent issue in the sense of ensuring that people like my mother, for example, understand the backstory here, what is real or what is maybe hyperbole or whatever the case may be. I really like what I'm hearing from MP Davies and MP Thériault. Again, I think it would be great to look at two hours. As the clerk just said, the next offering is an evening, or after the minister next Friday. I think two hours would be an important piece for us to look at it, given the urgency, to ensure that we get the answers that parliamentarians and Canadians, people like my mom, want.

I really appreciate that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Mr. Kelloway.

Dr. Powlowski, please go ahead.

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

I'm trying to do something constructive here rather than just making a comment, in that I'm trying to put together an alternate motion.

I don't know if anyone else has seen this news. I texted my colleagues. News has just come out that Johnson & Johnson has been approved. I think this materially alters the need for the initial proposal, which I totally agree with. It was a good proposal and does address a very important question. Certainly, the numbers regarding AstraZeneca are all over the place, because there are a whole bunch of studies looking at whole bunch of end-points.

For me, the most crucial and I think the most conclusive study has come out of Scotland, where they've vaccinated over a million people. Over 400,000 got AstraZeneca. My understanding is that most of those people were over 80. After having received the AstraZeneca vaccination, they showed—I think after one month—a 94% reduction in hospitalization, which was actually better than Pfizer, which was somewhere in the eighties.

I think the fact is that AstraZeneca will be approved for an older population, but now Johnson & Johnson is out there as well. For the sake of Canadians, we're going to want some clarity, and hopefully at the national level, because as Michelle has said, and I think quite rightly, what all the provinces do could be different. Why not find out from NACI and from Health Canada what the recommendations are? As I say, now that Johnson & Johnson is out there, is that going to be a separate meeting?

I know that I'm speaking to Luc's amendment. I'm agnostic about the amendment, but I think there's a bigger issue on what exactly we're going to talk about. I was trying to come up with some kind of alternate proposal, which would be to put two hours aside sometime next week to discuss the newly authorized vaccines and the plan as to which populations would get which of those vaccines and based on what evidence.

Maybe I'm jumping the gun on that, but I thought I should point out the Johnson & Johnson approval. With Johnson & Johnson, too, that brings up other issues, because it too isn't as efficacious in preventing disease; however, the studies that came out show that it was 100% effective, at least in the limited population they had, at preventing hospitalization and death.

There is a big question: Who is going to get which of these vaccines? I absolutely agree with what everyone has said so far: I think that needs to be clarified.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Dr. Powlowski.

I'll suggest to Mr. Davies that he check with his whip again on slots for Tuesday and Thursday. In the background, I've checked with my sources, and it's confirmed that there are no slots available on those days. Could you please check on that, Mr. Davies?

Mr. Fisher, go ahead.

[Darren Fisher, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

I put my hand up thinking that the amendment might be dealt with by this point.

I'll take my hand down, and I won't put it back up again until the amendment is dealt with.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you.

Is there anyone who wishes to speak on the amendment, or do we wish to go to a vote on the amendment?

Mr. Van Bynen, please go ahead.

[Tony Van Bynen, Liberal, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I think it's important that the public be informed. If we're taking a look at the sense of urgency, there are matters that are urgent and important, and there are matters that are important. I'd like to remind the committee that the decision to administer the vaccine to any specific group is made by medical professionals.

In this case, in my community, it's made by the medical officer of health for the Regional Municipality of York. There seems to be a bit of a tendency for us to micromanage this situation and not give the medical professionals the credentials and the credit they deserve. I'm sure that the medical officers of health have already been in discussion with Health Canada and the advisory committee on immunization.

I think it's important, and it's important enough to give it the time it deserves, and therefore I would want us to make sure that we have the two hours available, but let's not forget that the decision to administer the vaccine is in the hands of medical professionals.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Mr. Van Bynen.

Mr. Maguire, please go ahead.

[Larry Maguire, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

I think there is an urgency to this. Mr. Van Bynen may be right, but those professionals need to know what information they're basing the decision on, and that's what this motion is about. There's a conflict in facts here between NACI and Health Canada in regard to just AstraZeneca. We have a number of vaccines that have been licensed in Canada, and that's great, but we also have a situation where there has been some conflicting information as well. I think we need to deal with the situation that's before us.

If this vaccine is going out to be used by sources in Canada—and I believe there are areas where it could be, but perhaps just not in those aged over 65—if we wait until the week after next, then that's really putting 10 to 12 days of vaccines in people's arms when we don't know what the efficacy of doing that would be. That's the nuts and bolts of having this meeting: to try to clarify this for the public. I think one of the things called for here is to make sure we reduce vaccine hesitancy as much as we can. We want everybody to know that they can be secure when they're getting a vaccine in their arms.

That's why I think it's very important that this meeting be at least next week sometime. Early in the morning, late at night or after another meeting, I'm fine with whenever it is. I do think that for the public's interest, the sooner it is, the better.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Mr. Maguire.

Ms. Sidhu, please go ahead.

[Sonia Sidhu, Liberal, Brampton South, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I agree with Don, Mr. Chair, that we should be mindful of the fact that we are already in the middle of the study on the topic of vaccines. There are other important topics that the committee wants to study, as Don said, but this is what we were saying during the last 106(4), in a polite way. We were cognizant of these consequences.

On Luc's motion, I agree that we want a full two hours, and there may be more witnesses we also want to hear from on this subject. One additional hour on Monday does not sound sufficient, as we want to hear from everyone.

Also, as MP Luc Thériault said, we want to hear proper translation. Technical matters should be clear so that we can understand. We also want to hear from Health Canada, which approves the vaccines. There are many other experts, and we need to make sure that proper headsets are available for these witnesses to allow for proper translation.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Ms. Sidhu.

Mr. Thériault, you have the floor.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

I don't want to prolong the debate, but after this last intervention, I'll say that it's quite obvious that this issue, if it were considered urgent, could have been dealt with for three hours instead of two. The experts on the first panel can be asked about our concerns, and as Ms. Sidhu just said, we should invite not only Dr. Quach and officials from Health Canada, but also other experts. We could have had them on Monday.

That said, I understand that there's a consensus among my colleagues to hold a two-hour meeting. So, I understand from what's emerging that the amendment will be defeated. I think this was a good opportunity to avoid changing the order of things with respect to the motion that was passed in the House and to take the necessary time on Monday to focus our questions on the motion presented by the Conservatives. We could have set the record straight.

I also want to reiterate what Mr. Van Bynen said, because it's important. The public should not be led to believe that when decisions are made about the immunization of people 65 years of age and older, based on this or that vaccine, they'll be based strictly on conflicting facts. The National Advisory Committee on Immunization, NACI, and Health Canada, which has approved the vaccine without constraint, have done their work at different times on the schedule.

As I speak, the Quebec immunization committee is doing its job. Based on the data provided by the NACI in a completely transparent manner and on the Health Canada study, it will decide on the vaccination strategy in Quebec, as has Ontario and elsewhere.

So there's no problem in updating conflicting facts. These people will use the most recent information available to them to decide on the most effective strategy. Now, it's up to us—and we're always a bit behind and out of step in our studies—to reassure everyone, including our mayors, without any problem.

I thought it was important to reiterate what Mr. Van Bynen said. In other words, what we are going to do at this meeting will probably not determine the decision of the Quebec immunization committee. I think it's going to make its decision before our meeting. That's why I thought that by adding an hour to the meeting, after hearing from experts and questioning them for two hours, we would have had the best compromise.

I'm obviously going to vote for my amendment, and I'll understand it if it's defeated.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you.

We'll go back to Mr. Davies.

Go ahead, Mr. Davies.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Thank you.

What would be helpful for me would be to lay before the committee what all the options are, and then we could select the best option. The trouble with doing it one at a time is that we're not quite sure what the alternatives are. What I'm hearing now is that these are the alternatives: We can have an extra hour on Monday after our meeting, we could have two hours after the minister appears on Friday, or we could schedule a two-hour meeting the following break week virtually any time, say Monday.

I really think the best way to approach this is for us to take a straw poll as to which of those options is the best. I know Michelle was quite passionate about having it next week for sure. If we're okay with it being on Friday, I don't think it does a great deal of violence to the concept to have it the following Monday. I'm okay with either Friday or Monday. I kind of prefer having it on the break week, slightly, because it saves us a four-hour meeting at the end of a very busy week next week, if it's tacked on to a meeting. It gives us a bit of breathing space.

The other thing.... I don't want to muddy the waters too much, but I'm interested in Marcus's comments about Johnson & Johnson. I'm wondering if there may even be some consideration to folding them in and having them appear as well. If we had this meeting the following Monday—I don't want to get too far afield here and maybe it's unhelpful to complicate it—that would give us a little bit of time to invite them. But maybe we'd better not do that. It will just complicate things.

Basically, to me it's either Friday for two hours or Monday. I think we should try to find out from our colleagues as to the will of the majority.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Mr. Davies.

We will go back to Mr. Fisher.

[Darren Fisher, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thanks, Don.

Can I be so bold as to ask the clerk whether it would be more convenient to do it for two hours Friday evening afterwards? Is a slot available on Monday? This is just to help get some clarity on some of the questions Don has posed. My apologies that we're not specifically speaking to Mr. Thériault's amendment, but others are.... I think we're having a good conversation on how we can move forward on this and how we can, hopefully, keep the whole committee happy.

I would ask the clerk if he could chime in.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Mr. Clerk, please go ahead.

[The Clerk]

For Monday, March 8, we have one hour extra, so we could go until two o'clock. Friday, after the minister, we could go from 3:00 to 5:00.

I was informed a few minutes ago—and I didn't have that information when I intervened earlier—that we could have a spot Thursday night, 6:30 to 8:30. This is Thursday of next week. The week after is a break week, so it would be easy to have a meeting then. But on Thursday night there's a time slot available for two hours, 6:30 to 8:30.