Evidence of meeting #24 for Health in the 43rd Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was naci.
A recording is available from Parliament.
9:35 p.m.
Chair, National Advisory Committee on Immunization and Professor, Université de Montréal
Other people are currently looking at that too, and they're wondering if that's not something they should also do. Because we have good effectiveness surveillance data, I think that saying we can go up to four months, and being able to shorten that interval as needed, is absolutely possible.
If we didn't have surveillance data, we wouldn't have gone that way, but because we're able to do that real-time surveillance, that's reassuring to me.
9:35 p.m.
NDP
Don Davies NDP Vancouver Kingsway, BC
I guess this will be my last question.
On Monday, Dr. Grandvaux said, “The most important problem, in my opinion, is undoubtedly that NACI's recommendations are not always based on scientific evidence, but in some cases on assumptions and expert opinions.” Is it correct that NACI is making recommendations based on assumptions and opinions, rather than scientific evidence?
9:35 p.m.
Chair, National Advisory Committee on Immunization and Professor, Université de Montréal
When we do expert opinion recommendations, we state it. It happens that we have to do such a thing; that's why we're an expert committee. It's the same thing when I treat a patient; I don't always have all the data, and I don't always have all the facts in the science to be able to treat that patient, because it's something unique. You have to take the data and generalize it to your patient's clinical scenario.
It's the same thing here. It's something that hasn't been seen before. So yes, it is an expert opinion, and we say so.
9:35 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
Thank you, Mr. Davies.
Committee, that brings round three to a close.
I would like to ask if there's consensus to adjourn the meeting at this time. We've had a lot of great testimony from our witnesses. Recognizing the lateness of the hour, do we have consensus to adjourn? I'm seeing that.
I'd like to thank the witnesses, absolutely, for their extraordinary effort and the time they put in just on general principles, all the time, but mostly for the time they've given us today and the great and very helpful testimony. Thank you, all.
Thank you to the members.
With that, we are now adjourned.