Evidence of meeting #23 for Health in the 43rd Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was vaccine.
A recording is available from Parliament.
President, Pfizer Canada Inc.
Just to be clear, it wasn't important to get a deal in place. We had our agreement in place before Health Canada authorized the rolling submission forecast, but it was critical to accelerating and allowing us to bring vaccines to Canada in December.
Liberal
Darren Fisher Liberal Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS
Okay, I have it. Thank you so much.
Mr. Chair, that's all I have.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
Thank you, Mr. Fisher.
We'll go now to Mr. Thériault.
It's your turn, Mr. Thériault. You have six minutes.
Bloc
Luc Thériault Bloc Montcalm, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Dr. Grandvaux, you said earlier that we should be careful not to publish contradictory information or data.
In terms of the two doses, have you read the study by Dr. De Serres from the Institut national de santé publique du Québec, or INSPQ?
Bloc
Luc Thériault Bloc Montcalm, QC
Okay.
Did he reassure you about the gap of over 21 days between the first and second dose?
I believe that, through this study, he showed that the second dose only prolonged the effect of the first dose and that the first dose already provided 80% to 85% immunity.
In the context of a shortage, because we dragged our feet on vaccination for a long time, do you think that this was warranted?
Could this have caused people to worry?
Professor, Faculty of Medecine, As an Individual
The study in which Dr. De Serres participated is actually a second analysis of clinical data published as part of clinical trials. It's a different way of analyzing the data.
They removed the data from the first seven days of the clinical trial on the basis that it's well known that the vaccine isn't effective yet during that period. Their analysis showed that the effectiveness of the first dose was similar to the effectiveness of the second dose.
However, it should be noted that, in this analysis, the number of participants who received only the first dose was very limited, since this was a two-dose study. The data can be interpreted based on a very small sample.
Nevertheless, as I said earlier, if we look at the real-world data, such as the field data from the United Kingdom, we see a differential effect based on the age of the person who received the first dose. The data is perhaps justified based on the field data for younger people. I'm concerned about the data for older people. It gives us an immunization status, but it doesn't give us any information on the impact of the second dose over the long term or the wait time for the second dose. That's very different.
The study only shows us whether people are starting to develop immunity.
Bloc
Luc Thériault Bloc Montcalm, QC
Speaking of studies, they're a total mess. We have new data, new studies, and things change throughout the week.
Last week, there was an issue regarding the administration of the AstraZeneca vaccine to people aged 65 and over. As the week draws to a close, a study by Public Health England shows that the first doses of the Pfizer and AstraZeneca vaccines are about equally effective in reducing and preventing serious complications and hospitalizations.
How can we make sense of this and get people to trust the information?
Aren't we a bit caught up in this vaccine race, where a whole host of publications and companies are responding to criticism and conducting specific studies to address people's concerns?
So much the better if people are less worried, but how can we make sense of this?
Professor, Faculty of Medecine, As an Individual
It's certainly a challenge, given that science is being carried out in real time now. Usually, clinical trials for a vaccine take about 10 years. In this case, the whole process was condensed into one year given the urgency of the situation. All the usual developments are visible to everyone and give rise to misunderstandings. That's why, as I said earlier, the institutions that make the decisions should at least join forces and deliver a consolidated message.
In terms of vaccinations, unfortunately we're behind other countries. We should use this delay to our advantage by studying the situation on the ground. We have access to data from Israel and the United Kingdom. Our institutions, Health Canada and the National Advisory Committee on Immunization, or NACI, should be using the data, working together, and possibly conducting reviews every two weeks or every month.
However, the message should be consolidated and should originate entirely from the same organization. There should be a consensus based on the field data. We should take the time to analyze the data properly, rather than releasing it daily or weekly, and to conduct reviews every two weeks or every month.
Bloc
Luc Thériault Bloc Montcalm, QC
That said, you would agree that the Comité sur l'immunisation du Québec, or CIQ, will make the decision on the vaccination strategy in Quebec.
Professor, Faculty of Medecine, As an Individual
Yes, unfortunately.
Professor, Faculty of Medecine, As an Individual
This adds a level of confusion. I say “unfortunately,” but if I were optimistic enough, I would say that the CIQ and other provincial agencies should be working with the federal agencies. However, I'm not very optimistic about that.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
Thank you.
We go now to Mr. Davies.
Mr. Davies, go ahead for six minutes.
NDP
Don Davies NDP Vancouver Kingsway, BC
Thank you.
Mr. Pinnow, did the Government of Canada attempt to negotiate a licensing agreement to manufacture the Pfizer BioNTech vaccine domestically in Canada?
President, Pfizer Canada Inc.
Mr. Chair, could I ask the member to clarify the timing of the question regarding when we engaged and how we engaged with the government?
NDP
Don Davies NDP Vancouver Kingsway, BC
Well, I suppose from the moment you started negotiating with the Canadian government about vaccine sales, did they ever request that you produce that vaccine here in Canada?
President, Pfizer Canada Inc.
Yes, they did, but we wanted to move as fast as the speed of science would allow, and having full autonomy over our manufacturing process was vital to be able to do that.
Subsequently, as recently as a month ago, we have undertaken a second evaluation of Canadian capabilities to understand if there's a turnkey solution for our vaccine process. After evaluating six manufacturing sites, which the government provided full capability analyses on, we determined that there was not a viable manufacturing facility here in Canada for fill-finish that would allow us to quickly transfer our process to be able to produce locally.
NDP
Don Davies NDP Vancouver Kingsway, BC
In how many countries is Pfizer producing the vaccine around the world?
President, Pfizer Canada Inc.
Which part of the process? Mr. Chair, I'd like to understand which part of the process, because as I provided in my opening remarks, there are over 19 different countries that are involved in the manufacture of this. If we're specifically talking about fill-finish, then we are looking at two.
Don Davies NDP Vancouver Kingsway, BC
Okay, thank you.
Last week the U.S. pharmaceutical company Novavax published its vaccine agreement with Canada. This is the only agreement made public so far between the Canadian government and a vaccine manufacturer. In that contract, it specifically permits releasing details for the purposes of government administration in keeping with proactive disclosure laws and “reporting to Parliament.”
Does Canada's contract with Pfizer contain a similar clause?
President, Pfizer Canada Inc.
The contract between Canada and Pfizer is confidential in nature. There's only a handful of agreements, one of which you mentioned, that are in the public domain. Each of those has its own purpose behind it. In the vast majority of agreements between manufacturers and countries—