Thank you, Chair.
Just to clarify, am I coming through loud and clear on the French translation line? We're good? Okay. Awesome.
Here we are again. I want to thank colleagues for coming to this meeting again during a parliamentary recess week. I will move a motion, but prior to doing so I want to put forward my rationale.
Early in the week we found out reports that the national advisory committee on immunization, or NACI, has recommended against giving the AstraZeneca vaccine to Canadians aged 65 and older, citing a lack of evidence that the vaccine is effective among this age group. NACI has put forward concerns saying that the vaccine might not be effective in preventing severe effects of COVID-19. Then, after this recommendation came out, we found out that Health Canada, the department that's formally in charge of the final decision on who to recommend to give vaccines to, decided to put that advice aside and recommended that the AstraZeneca vaccine be given to seniors anyway.
For me as a parliamentarian, and then watching the subsequent fallout from provincial governments trying to decide whether they would administer this vaccine to seniors or not.... I'm an economist, I'm not an epidemiologist or a vaccine expert. I would really like to know why there is a discrepancy in these two recommendations. I think it's really incumbent upon us to do that quickly.
The reason we put forward a Standing Order 106(4) motion is that we know that the AstraZeneca vaccine has, I believe, begun to arrive in Canada. Provinces will have to be making decisions on who to administer the vaccine to. Since we know that seniors are among the most vulnerable to COVID, efficacy, and the decision on whether or not to administer a vaccine based on efficacy, should be a fairly relevant point of clarification for this committee.
I want to point out a couple of things in terms of the rationale for wanting to have a meeting to have experts before our committee to explain the process one way or another. First of all, I really think it's important that all Canadians decide to take a vaccine for COVID-19. I think this will be the number one public health tool. I know that even just from the reports in the media, given this conflicting information, some seniors have said, “Should I be taking this vaccine or not? Is it actually going to protect me?” I think that is a relevant question for this committee to very quickly get answers on from experts.
The second reason I think this meeting would be so important is that perhaps it would provide some clarity for provincial colleagues or other health authorities. If other vaccines are proven to be effective at a higher level of efficacy in that age group, should the recommendation be to prioritize those vaccines for that age group so that we're seeing maximum efficacy?
Chair, I did pull an analysis off the government's website. Table 11 is entitled “Estimates of vaccine efficacy against the first occurrence of confirmed COVID-19 beginning =15 days after Dose 2” for the AstraZeneca vaccine. I can send this to you and to the clerk, if need be. This is the government's data on the efficacy of the AstraZeneca vaccine in seniors aged 65 plus. What I see here is 43.2%. The World Health Organization's guideline for vaccine efficacy is 50%. I believe for the Food and Drug Administration in the U.S. it's the same. I couldn't find our guidelines. This is something I'd like experts to explain to our committee.
So this is less about having a political position and more about sussing this out with the experts in a vehicle that's not news articles that are conflicting. I was reading news articles as this story progressed this week, and I noticed that health experts were saying that the messaging has been quite muddled.
I think we need to get to the bottom of this, and we need to do it very quickly. I think this meeting would give an opportunity for both NACI and Health Canada to provide clear information and direction on whether or not seniors should be administered this vaccine or if they should be prioritized to have other vaccines that have that very high proven efficacy in their age group.
I'd like that to happen as soon as possible, and that's the reason for this meeting today.
I know it's come up that “oh, we're having another 106(4) meeting”. Yes, we are, but there are two things.
First of all, it was a recess week. This news broke on a recess week and, unfortunately, developments with the pandemic don't just occur in parliamentary sitting weeks. The urgency, given the potential administration of the AstraZeneca vaccine, is happening now. As you are well aware, Chair, with all of the—dare I say it?—drama that we've had in this committee, especially pertaining to getting meetings where we have adequate translation, I felt that we needed to do this and we needed to do it now. We haven't been successful in having subcommittee meetings because of—quote, unquote—resources, so here we are today.
I hope this can be perceived as a non-partisan type of motion. We just need some information. It just needs to be clear. I think this will actually help all of our constituents and everybody we represent across the country.
With that, I move:
That the committee invite the following representatives from the Public Health Agency of Canada to give a joint presentation of no more than 15 minutes:
Roman Szumski, Senior Vice-President of the Vaccine Acquisition Branch
Gina Charos and/or Stephen Bent, Director General level officials for the Centre for Immunization and Respiratory Infectious Diseases
Kim Elmslie, Vice-President of the Immunization Branch;
and that Dr. Caroline Quach-Thanh, Chair of the National Advisory Committee on Immunization be invited to give a presentation of no more than 10 minutes;
That the above witnesses be asked to present on:
...NACI’s recommendation against using the AstraZeneca vaccine for Canadians 65-and-older
...Reports that Health Canada will advise against following the advice from NACI
...Evidence of the AstraZeneca vaccine’s effectiveness in the [age] 65-and-older cohort,
...Potential ramifications of administering/not administering the AstraZeneca vaccine to persons aged 65-and-older in Canada
That the witnesses present concurrently on one single panel and remain available for question rounds after their presentations, that the meeting be no less than two hours duration, and that it be held no later than March 8, 2021.
I realize March 8 is quickly setting upon us, Chair.
What I'm thinking here is that we have technical-level experts from PHAC, the people who are actually doing the work of the recommendations, not just people who are out in the media every day. I want to hear from technical experts, and I'd like to have these two organizations side by side so that we can direct questions to them concurrently. I think that's going to be very important. I think we have to do this as soon as possible.
I hope that all members will agree and that we can move on with life and we can get some information.
Thank you, Chair.