No. 335
Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities
:
Mr. Speaker, the following questions on the Order Paper will be answered today: Questions Nos. 2651, 2652, 2654, 2658 to 2670, 2672, 2675, 2683, 2685 to 2687, 2690 to 2692, and 2697.
[Text]
Question No. 2651—Mr. Colin Carrie:
With regard to Health Canada (HC) and the initial Pfizer-BioNTech mRNA product and approval process thereof: (a) did HC ask Pfizer to conduct genotoxicity studies to rule out insertional mutagenesis with DNA contamination; (b) if the answer to (a) is negative, why not; (c) what are the dangers with respect to insertional mutagenesis; (d) in the context of the mRNA vaccine, what is the purpose of the lipid nanoparticle (LNP) delivery system; (e) in the context of the mRNA vaccine manufacturing process, (i) what is the purpose of the SV40 enhancer-promoter-ori sequence, (ii) does it include a 72 base pair Nuclear Targeting Sequences (NTS), (iii) if the answer to (ii) is affirmative, what is the purpose of an NTS; (f) with regard to the plasmid map used in the production of the modified mRNA, (i) on what date did the manufacturer provide the map to HC, (ii) what gene annotation was provided; (g) in relation to (f), did the map contain an SV40 promoter-enhancer sequence and a reverse open reading frame; (h) if no plasmid map was received, why did HC not ask for one; (i) according to the response to Order Paper question Q-2266, “There are strict limits and controls for the presence of these residual fragments to ensure that there is no effect on the safety or effectiveness of the vaccine,” as part of the residual DNA testing and measurement, (i) what quantity of DNA fragments and SV40 enhancer-promoter fragments per dose were found in the Pfizer product, (ii) who provided the data to HC, (iii) when was this data provided to HC, (iv) is HC aware that the EMA reported a very large variance with respect to the residual DNA levels in the bulk mRNA and that the SV40 enhancer in the promotor sequence is 72 base pairs, (v) if the answers to (i) and (iv) are affirmative, what was HC’s appraisal of this information, (vi) what analytical techniques did the manufacturer rely upon to quantify the amount of RNA and the amount of DNA, (vii) do these quantities meet the “strict limits and controls for the presence of these residual fragments” and what are those limits; (j) as part of HC’s requirements for lot release testing, has HC independently confirmed the quantity of residual DNA and SV40 sequences in the Pfizer-BioNTech product; (k) if the answer to (j) is affirmative, (i) which laboratory and chief scientist provided this independent testing, (ii) what were the amounts recorded, (iii) were these different than those amounts provided by the manufacturer; (l) if the answer to (j) is negative, why was independent testing not completed; (m) is HC aware that Pfizer deliberately removed the SV40 enhancer sequence when reporting the annotated plasmid; and (n) according to HC's response to Order Paper question Q-2266, “The SV40 promoter enhancer sequence… is inactive, has no functional role, and was measured to be consistently below the limit," (i) who provided HC with this assessment, (ii) is there evidence that the SV40 promoter binds to the P53 tumor suppressor gene and affects DNA repair mechanisms, (iii) if the answer to (ii) is affirmative, what are the risks to the health of Canadians as a result?
Mr. Yasir Naqvi (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the health and safety of Canadians is Health Canada’s top priority, and the department exercises stringent regulatory oversight over vaccines.
Before the initial approval of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine, the department completed a rigorous scientific review of the product’s safety, efficacy and quality, including details on manufacturing processes and information on adverse events following immunization. An authorization was only issued once Health Canada confirmed the benefits of the vaccine outweighed the risks of its use. The summary basis of decision can be found at this link: https://covid-vaccine.canada.ca/info/summary-basis-decision-detailTwo.html?linkID=SBD00510.
During the review of the information submitted by the manufacturer, Health Canada became aware of the potential presence of residual DNA in the Pfizer-BioNTech mRNA vaccine preparation. However, the content of the residual DNA was below 10 nanograms/dose. The content of residual DNA was lower than the recommended limits established by the World Health Organization, WHO, in consultation with subject matter experts. Accordingly, the department did not request genotoxicity studies, as the residual DNA was considered a low risk.
Furthermore, the department reviews the manufacturing data for each vaccine lot that is released for use in Canada to ensure they meet their established specifications, including those for residual DNA. The amounts of residual DNA in Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine lots were reported to Health Canada, as well as to our international partner agencies: e.g., EMA and U.S. FDA. Both Health Canada and our international partners consider the test methods used by Pfizer-BioNTech for detecting that residual DNA to be scientifically sound and appropriate for their intended use. As well, the results from the residual DNA tests were consistent among different vaccine lots sold both in Canada and elsewhere and were also consistent with other manufacturing data provided in support of the release of each product lot.
With regard to the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 mRNA vaccine manufacturing process, an SV40 enhancer-promoter region was present in the DNA plasmid template, but has no functional role and is not upstream of any SV40 gene, and the DNA template is digested and filtered to remove from the mRNA vaccine. Health Canada cannot speculate on any intentions by Pfizer-BioNTech in regard to whether they removed the SV40 sequence when reporting the annotated plasmid. Please note that information requested on gene sequences, gene annotation and gene/plasmid map, received on November 16, 2020, as well as analytical techniques used by the manufacturer, are proprietary to Pfizer-BioNTech. However, Health Canada’s scientists reviewed this, and all of the other submitted information, and considered it within the risk assessment for their product. Any residual DNA fragments are considered as inactive, and an internal assessment of submissions by Pfizer-BioNTech found that they were consistently reported below the limit recommended by WHO.
Lastly, the lipid nanoparticle, LNP, component of the Pfizer-BioNTech mRNA vaccine preparation served as a delivery vehicle for the mRNA. Cells cannot efficiently internalize the mRNA in the absence of the LNP.
Question No. 2652—Mr. Colin Carrie:
With regard to Health Canada’s standards for safety and efficacy for the COVID-19 vaccines: (a) have any COVID-19 vaccines met the requirements of Section C.08.001(2) of the Food and Drug Regulations (2)(g) and (2)(h) for safety and efficacy; (b) has any COVID-19 designated drug or vaccine, approved under Section C.08.001(2.1) of the Food and Drug Regulations, subsequently met the standard for safety and efficacy as delineated in subsection (2)(g) and (2)(h) of Section C.08.001(2); (c) if the answer to (b) is negative, why not; (d) if a COVID-19 designated vaccine has not met (2)(g) and (2)(h) of C.08.001(2), which requires the sponsor to establish safety and efficacy, can the use of the terms “safe and effective” be applied to these vaccines; (e) if the answer to (d) is affirmative, what is the rationale; (f) with regard to the portal on the approval of COVID-19 vaccines for Comirnaty and available information for COMIRNATY - Submission control number 252736 on the Government of Canada's website, is the information for 2.7.1 Summary of Biopharmaceutic Studies and Associated Analytical Methods available to the public under the transparency initiatives; (g) if the answer to (f) is negative, why not; (h) as the mRNA vaccines represent a new manufacturing platform, do they meet the requirements of Section C.04.015 of the Food and Drug Regulations; (i) if the answer to (h) is negative, why not; (j) have the Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna vaccines been assigned to Group 2 Lot Evaluation Group as part of the Lot Release Program; and (k) if the answer to (j) is negative, why not?
Mr. Yasir Naqvi (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the health and safety of Canadians are Health Canada’s top priorities, and the department exercises stringent regulatory oversight over vaccines. Before any of the COVID-19 vaccines were approved in Canada, the department conducted rigorous scientific review of the extensive data regarding the vaccines’ safety, efficacy and quality, including results of pre-clinical and clinical studies, details on manufacturing processes, and information on adverse events following immunization. An authorization was only issued when the benefits of any of the COVID-19 vaccines outweighed the risks of their use, thereby allowing the use of “safe and effective” in describing the authorized vaccine preparations.
The COVID-19 vaccines and treatments portal, https://covid-vaccine.canada.ca/, contains the summary basis of decision for each of the authorized COVID-19 vaccines. Please note that biopharmaceutic studies and associated analytical methods are proprietary and cannot be disclosed. All COVID-19 vaccines authorized by Health Canada under the interim order met the requirements of section C.08.001(2) of the food and drug regulations (2)(g) and (2)(h) for safety and efficacy. Terms and conditions were imposed upon the authorization with respect to quality, clinical, labelling, and risk management plan requirements. This process has allowed Health Canada to assess information submitted by the manufacturer as it became available during the product life cycle to ensure that the benefits of the vaccines continued to outweigh the risks. Additional safety and effectiveness data generated post-approval continue to support Health Canada's original decision.
Lastly, the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines authorized by Health Canada met the requirements of section C.04.015 of the food and drug regulations. However, the lot evaluation group assigned to mRNA vaccines, as part of the lot release program and protocols of testing submitted by the manufacturers, is proprietary and cannot be disclosed.
Question No. 2654—Ms. Lianne Rood:
With regard to the Dairy Innovation and Investment Fund: (a) how many applications did the program receive; (b) how many of those applications were accepted; (c) how much of the total program funding was allotted to applicants; and (d) how much funding has been released to date, broken down by province?
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to the Canadian Dairy Commission, in response to part (a), to date, 18 applications have been received.
In response to part (b), all applications are under review/pending completion of the assessment process.
In response to part (c), the assessment process is ongoing and no funds have been approved.
In response to part (d), the assessment process is ongoing and no funds have been approved.
Question No. 2658—Mr. Blake Richards:
With regard to the 2024 budget documents: what are the expenditures incurred to date related to the documents, in total and broken down by (i) consulting costs, (ii) publishing costs, (iii) printing costs, (iv) design costs, including graphic design, (v) writing costs, (vi) marketing costs, (vii) any other costs not reflected in the previous categories?
Hon. Chrystia Freeland (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the total expenditures incurred to produce the 2024 budget documents amount to $390,094.02. Please find a detailed breakdown below.
In response to part (i), the consulting costs were $0.00.
In response to part (ii), the publishing costs were $0.00.
In response to part (iii), the printing costs were $269,858.61.
In response to part (iv), the design costs were $180.00.
In response to part (v), the writing costs were $0.00.
In response to part (vi), the marketing costs were $0.00.
In response to part (vii), any other costs, the translation costs were $120,055.41.
Question No. 2659—Mrs. Rosemarie Falk:
With regard to Section 5.25 of the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development's report entitled "Agriculture and Climate Change Mitigation - Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada": how does the government plan to meet its 3.5 Mt CO2 eq fertilizer emission reduction target despite the shortfall stated by the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development in the aforementioned report?
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, as part of its domestic and international greenhouse gas reporting requirements, Canada must prepare and publish emissions projections on an annual basis. AAFC works with Environment and Climate Change Canada to develop the emissions projections for the agriculture sector, which includes the projected impact of any new, current, or planned programming. Through the agricultural climate solutions – on-farm climate action fund, the sustainable Canadian agricultural partnership, and the $34.1 million proposed in budget 2023 to support the adoption of nitrogen management practices, AAFC has most recently estimated a 1.44 megatonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent, Mt CO2e, reduction in fertilizer emissions per year by 2030.
Although the 1.44 Mt CO2e estimate does not currently account for the projected impact of the agricultural climate solutions – living labs and agricultural clean technology program, both programs support the research, development, and adoption of practices and technologies that can reduce fertilizer emissions. In addition, some federally funded programs under the sustainable Canadian agricultural partnership, such as AgriScience and AgriInnovate, can support fertilizer-related projects along the innovation continuum. Because Canada’s emissions projections are updated annually, the estimated reduction in fertilizer emissions from all of AAFC’s current programming may be included as more research and data become available.
The 1.44 Mt CO2e estimate also does not account for industry-led or provincially led initiatives that may directly or indirectly reduce fertilizer emissions, including Fertilizer Canada’s 4R designation and certification, Farm Credit Canada’s 4R sustainability incentive program, and the Government of Ontario’s fertilizer accelerating solutions & technology challenge.
Question No. 2660—Mrs. Rosemarie Falk:
With regard to Section 5.24 of the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development's report entitled "Agriculture and Climate Change Mitigation - Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada": to achieve the fertilizer emission reduction targets, what voluntary agreements have been made between Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada and with fertilizer manufacturers, agricultural stakeholders, provinces, and farmers?
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, AAFC officials are actively engaging with national and regional commodity associations, industry organizations, and academia on the development of a strategic approach for reaching the target through the fertilizer emissions reduction working group under the sustainable agriculture strategy advisory committee. The working group is focused on identifying opportunities to increase the voluntary adoption of beneficial management practices, address data and measurement issues, recognize innovative solutions, and expand outreach and extension activities.
The ongoing development and implementation of the sustainable agriculture strategy also presents additional opportunities for developing and strengthening partnerships and collaboration with the sector to address key agri-environmental issues, including fertilizer emissions.
Question No. 2661—Mr. Fraser Tolmie:
With regard to Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada since January 2024: what is Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada's progress on developing a strategy to guide its climate change mitigation programs and activities?
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, AAFC is currently in the process of drafting the sustainable agriculture strategy, SAS. Climate change mitigation is one of the five priority areas covered by the SAS. The other four include adaptation, biodiversity, water, and soil health. The SAS will set a shared direction for collective action to improve environmental performance in the sector over the long term in order to advance the sustainability, competitiveness, and vitality of the agriculture sector.
Since January 2024, AAFC has been meeting monthly with the SAS advisory committee to receive input and advice on various components of the strategy, and AAFC has been developing components of a draft strategy document. Ongoing engagement has continued with representatives from across the agriculture sector, including producers, commodity organizations, non-governmental organizations, provincial and territorial partners, indigenous peoples, and others.
The strategy will include broad goals and measurable outcomes, with clear indicators to measure progress across the five priority areas. The SAS is expected to be released in 2024.
Question No. 2662—Mr. Fraser Tolmie:
With regard to Exhibit 5.1 of the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development's report entitled "Agriculture and Climate Change Mitigation - Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada": (a) what was the methodology in determining the emissions of crop production; (b) what data gathering techniques were utilized; and (c) what were the earliest and latest data points that were used?
Hon. Steven Guilbeault (Minister of Environment and Climate Change, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, in response to part (a), figure 5.1 reports emissions from the national inventory report of greenhouse gas sources and sinks in Canada. Cropland emissions are determined using an internationally accepted method, which has been modified to reflect Canadian soils, climate, crops and management practices. It is further adapted based on empirical data collected from research studies across Canada. Included in the emissions from cropland are direct and indirect nitrous oxide from synthetic fertilizers, organic fertilizers, crop residue decomposition, cultivation of organic soils, mineralization of soil organic carbon, conservation tillage, irrigation and manure on pasture and rangeland. Additionally, the method estimates nitrous oxide and methane emissions from field burning of agricultural residues as well as carbon dioxide emissions from liming and urea fertilizer application.
In response to part (b), the national inventory report primarily uses survey data provided by Statistics Canada from the census of agriculture, as well as other annual surveys that describe the distribution, yield and acreage of crops across Canada, as well as data from the Statistics Canada fertilizer shipments survey that describes the amount of fertilizer sold. Additionally, the inventory uses surveys on fertilizer use and expert opinion to inform the method.
In response to part (c), figure 5.1 describes the emissions as of 2021. The national inventory tracks annual emissions, starting in 1990. The latest data point now available is 2022, released in early May.
Question No. 2663—Mr. Warren Steinley:
With regard to Exhibit 5.1 of the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development's report entitled "Agriculture and Climate Change Mitigation - Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada": (a) what was the methodology in determining the emissions of animal production; (b) what data gathering techniques were used; (c) what were the earliest and latest data points that were used; (d) can the data be broken down by animal and by sector (e.g. beef, dairy, poultry); and (e) were meat processing facilities included in this data?
Hon. Steven Guilbeault (Minister of Environment and Climate Change, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, in response to part (a), figure 5.1 reports emissions from the national inventory report of greenhouse gas sources and sinks in Canada. Livestock emissions are determined using a standard Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, IPCC, methodology and consist primarily of methane emissions from livestock production and manure management. The method tracks enteric methane emissions from livestock, mainly ruminants such as cattle and other ruminants, as well as methane and nitrous oxide emissions from manure management. This method is based on an internationally accepted standard, which has been modified to reflect Canadian climate, livestock types and management practices. It is further adapted based on empirical data collected from studies across Canada.
In response to part (b), data for the modeling comes primarily from the Statistics Canada census of agriculture, as well as the biennial livestock survey from Statistics Canada, which describes the population, age and gender distribution of livestock types. Additional data on livestock productivity and manure management practices come from Statistics Canada surveys, as well as from expert opinion surveys.
In response to part (c), figure 5.1 describes the emissions as of 2021. The national inventory tracks annual emissions, starting in 1990. The latest data point now available is 2022, released in early May.
In response to part (d), the data can be broken down by livestock group. Livestock groups include dairy, beef, sheep, swine and other minor animal categories for enteric methane as well as manure management emissions of methane and nitrous oxide.
In response to part (e), no, the information is for farms only. Emissions from processing facilities would be included in the industry sector.
Question No. 2664—Mr. Jeremy Patzer:
With regard to Bill S-14, An Act to amend the Canada National Parks Act, the Canada National Marine Conservation Areas Act, the Rouge National Urban Park Act, and the National Parks of Canada Fishing Regulations: did any government department or agency do any consultations related to the proposed measures in the bill, and, if so, (i) who were the groups and people that were consulted, (ii) how much money was spent on the consultation process, (iii) what were the results or recommendations of the consultations, (iv) when were the consultations conducted, (v) how were the consultations conducted?
Hon. Steven Guilbeault (Minister of Environment and Climate Change, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, in response to parts (i), (ii), (iii), (iv) and (v), with respect to the protected areas addressed in Bill S-14, an act to amend the Canada National Parks Act, the Canada National Marine Conservation Areas Act, the Rouge National Urban Park Act, and the national parks of Canada fishing regulations, extensive consultation and engagement on the intent to expand or complete the establishment of each of these protected areas has taken place.
Within Bill S-14, there are planned expansions for seven national parks and one national park reserve and the creation of two new national parks. Much of this land is already under the control and administration of Parks Canada, and in some cases for over 20 years. As such, the consultation and engagement has been varied and dependent upon the circumstances, has been supported by local ongoing working relationships and has occurred over an extended period of time.
Specifically, regarding the creation of new protected areas, Parks Canada begins consultation and engagement with provincial and territorial governments and indigenous governments and organizations at the feasibility stage where a potential protected area site is initially selected. This consultation and engagement is critical and carries on throughout the establishment process. Consultation processes with partners, key stakeholders, provincial and territorial governments, indigenous peoples, and representatives of communities located in or near the national parks and national marine conservation areas occurred in many communities and took many forms. This includes face-to-face meetings, correspondence, community newsletters, public open houses, community participation in the development of park management plans, and other fora.
Canada has a legal duty to consult and accommodate, where appropriate, when it contemplates a project that may adversely impact upon the section 35 rights of indigenous peoples and takes these responsibilities very seriously. In fact, in a number of cases, protected areas that will be established or expanded within modern treaty areas are a requirement of land claim agreements or other agreements with modern treaty and self-government partners.
Concerning the detailed aspects of the question, Parks Canada undertook an assessment to determine the amount of information that would fall within the scope of the question. The information requested is not systematically tracked in a centralized database. In some cases, Parks Canada has had administration and control of the lands for 20years or more and the lands have been managed as though they were part of the park during this period and consultation and engagement has occurred via formal and informal means throughout the time period. Parks Canada has concluded that producing and validating a comprehensive response to the question would require a manual collection of information that is not possible in the time allotted and could lead to the disclosure of incomplete and misleading information.
Question No. 2665—Mr. Dean Allison:
With regard to Health Canada's (HC) review into the presence of SV40 and other DNA elements in the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine: (a) what were HC’s concerns regarding "SV40 enhancer-promoter sequence and other non-essential sequences in Pfizer's plasmid for their COVID-19 vaccines" as noted in email correspondences between HC, European Medicines Agency (EMA) and the Food and Drug Administration officials in August 2023 prior to an ad-hoc Cluster meeting held on August 24, 2023; (b) what did HC ask of Pfizer to mitigate the concerns in (a), and what was Pfizer's response; (c) did HC's experts review Kevin McKernan's et al. study entitled “Sequencing of bivalent Moderna and Pfizer mRNA Vaccines reveals Nanogram to Microgram Quantities of Expression Vector dsDNA per Dose”; (d) if the answer to (c) is affirmative, (i) what were HC's summary conclusions, (ii) how did HC respond to those conclusions; (e) is HC still of the position that "there is no peer-reviewed scientific literature suggesting that the SV40 promoter-enhancer itself or the other non-functional elements pose a risk to human health"; (f) if the answer to (e) is negative, what key peer-reviewed scientific literature did HC consider noteworthy; (g) is HC aware of the ability of the SV40 promoter-enhancer to bind to P53 as demonstrated by Drayman et al.; (h) if the answer to (g) is affirmative, (i) was the risk communicated to Pfizer, (ii) what was Pfizer's response; (i) if the answer to (g) is negative, will HC perform a risk analysis to human health; (j) is HC aware of the ability of the SV40 enhancer to act as a nuclear targeting sequence as demonstrated by Dean DA, Dean BS, Muller S, Smith LC. in their study entitled “Sequence Requirements for Plasmid Nuclear Import”; (k) if the answer to (j) is affirmative, was the risk communicated to Pfizer and a response requested; (I) if the answer to (j) is negative, will HC perform an independent risk analysis to human health; (m) if Pfizer's vaccine did not contain unsafe or unexpected plasmid sequences, such as SV40 promoter-enhancer, then why, on August 29, 2023, did Michael Wall state in an email to Tong Wu, "Health Canada will continue to work with international regulatory partners to achieve harmonisation regarding removal of these sequence elements from the plasmid for future strain changes"; (n) what are the "sequence elements" to which Michael Wall was referring; (o) regarding an email, on October 12, 2023, from an EMA colleague to Dr. Dean Smith at HC, which stated "We are going to discuss the matter of SV40 with Pfizer-BioNtech as well as these alleged high level of DNA in vaccines coming from these external parties. Have you taken any action? What would be your perspective?", (i) what action was taken or will be taken to address the "alleged high level of DNA" referenced in the email, (ii) has any action been taken to date, and, if so, what; (p) has HC informed (i) the Public Health Agency of Canada, (ii) Dr. Howard Njoo, (iii) Dr. Theresa Tam, (iv) Dr. Supriya Sharma, (v) the National Advisory Committee on Immunization, (vi) any or all of the provincial or territorial Chief Medical Officers, of the presence of the SV40 enhancer-promoter and DNA fragments; (q) if the answers to (p)(i) to (p)(vi) are affirmative, what were their individual responses; (r) if the answers to (p)(i) to (p)(vi) are negative, why or why not; (s) what risk assessment did HC perform to determine that SV40 promoter-enhancer is safe in an mRNA vaccine within the unique LNP delivery system; (t) what other Canadian vaccines contain SV40 promoter-enhancer sequence; and (u) what is HC's policy about SV40 promoter-enhancer being in any vaccine product?
Mr. Yasir Naqvi (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the health and safety of Canadians are Health Canada’s top priority, and before the initial authorization of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine, COMIRNATY, the department completed a rigorous scientific review of the product’s safety, efficacy and quality. Following authorization, Health Canada remained active in discussions with international partners in assessing the quality, safety and efficacy of all COVID 19 vaccines.
Health Canada also collaborates with international partners; the Public Health Agency of Canada, PHAC; the National Advisory Committee on Immunization, NACI; and provincial/territorial public health authorities in monitoring the safety of vaccines authorized for use in Canada. The risk-based decisions made by Health Canada on the COVID-19 mRNA vaccines are based on sound scientific evidence and are also in line with those of other countries, international guidelines, sound regulatory principles, and good regulatory practices.
Health Canada is aware of concerns surrounding SV40. In July 2023, through clarification requests, Health Canada evaluated the presence of the SV40 promoter-enhancer sequence in the plasmid used to prepare the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine, COMIRNATY, as well as in residual DNA as a manufacturing impurity in the final vaccine product. Clarification requests are routinely issued during submission review to seek clarifications on various aspects of the file. Health Canada submitted a clarification request to Pfizer seeking additional information related to the SV40 sequences. Pfizer provided a reply to address all of Health Canada’s questions. Please note that communications between Health Canada and manufacturers related to the manufacturing and control of a vaccine are considered confidential business information that cannot be disclosed.
As previously indicated, the presence of a fragment of the SV40 sequence is not the same as the presence of the whole virus itself. The SV40 promoter-enhancer sequence fragment is inactive and has no functional role. The presence of the SV40 promoter-enhancer sequence in the COVID-19 vaccines is considered as low risk, as the levels of this residual DNA fragment are consistent with international regulators and are below the WHO recommended limit of 10 ng/dose.
To date, over three billion doses of COMIRNATY have been administered worldwide, including over 69 million doses in Canada: https://health-infobase.canada.ca/covid-19/vaccine-administration/. No safety signals related to the residual SV40 DNA fragment have been detected. When new safety issues are confirmed by the department, Health Canada takes action, which may include communicating new risks to Canadians and health care professionals or changing the recommended use of the product.
Question No. 2666—Mr. John Nater:
With regard to the government's appointment of Catherine Blewett to be Secretary of the Treasury Board, effective February 6, 2024: (a) since February 6, 2024, broken down by month, how many days did the Secretary work in person at the Treasury Board Secretariat's main office at 90 Elgin Street in Ottawa; and (b) is the Secretary exempt from the government's requirement that employees are to work in the office for at least two days per week?
Mr. Anthony Housefather (Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the direction on prescribed presence in the workplace applies to all public servants, including deputy heads. In addition to setting a minimum number of days in the office, currently 2-3 days/week or 40-60% of an employee’s schedule, the direction allows for certain exemptions in exceptional cases, for example for medical reasons. Ms. Blewett has been under medical care since March 11, 2024. Her presence at TBS’ office is as follows: February 6 to 29, 13 days; March, 7 days; April, 0 days; May 1 to 2, 0 days.
Question No. 2667—Mr. Robert Kitchen:
With regard to Exhibit 5.8 of the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development's report entitled "Agriculture and Climate Change Mitigation-Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada" and the performance targets related to climate change mitigation in place for the Agricultural Clean Technology program: (a) what were the 193 new technologies adopted based on 141 performance reports; (b) what did the performance reports say about the adoption of these technologies; and (c) what were the 352 approved projects based on 141 performance reports?
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, in response to part (a), rhe 193 new technologies adopted were to replace or upgrade the existing technology on farm or in the food-processing facility with technology that showed promise to generate measurable emission reductions categories under the program’s three priority areas.
The area of green energy and energy efficiency covers improvements that enable better management of energy-intensive agricultural processes, such as more energy-efficient technology for grain drying and grain handling; more energy-efficient facility heating systems; replacing fossil fuels or fossil fuel-derived energy with renewable energy such as solar electricity or biomass fuel.
The area of precision agriculture covers technology that contributes to more precise, and therefore reduced, input use, such as variable rate application technologies and GPS, auto-steering, guidance systems that optimize fertilizer and seed placement, reducing inputs and the number of passes in the field; subsurface or injection technologies that reduce fertilizer and water inputs and soil disturbance; - precision feed technologies that optimize livestock digestion and reduce methane production; precision harvesting equipment that reduces fossil fuel inputs.
The area of bioeconomy solutions covers using agricultural waste and by-products to generate energy or create bioproducts, such as anaerobic digesters and manure or compost management technologies.
The following is a breakdown of the 193 adopted clean technologies that were included in the commissioner of the environment and sustainable development’s report: 39% in grain drying and handling; 21% in precision agriculture; 18% in solar adoption; 5% in biomass heating; and 17% in “other”, which includes a combination of the various technologies outlined above.
In response to part (b), at an aggregate level, the performance reports provided information confirming that the clean technologies were being adopted as planned and are achieving the projects’ anticipated greenhouse gases emissions reduction results. In addition, the reports provide information on efficiencies gained and results achieved at a granular level. They also detail a number of challenges and unforeseen circumstances that affected the adoption and use of these technologies. For example, supply chain issues, labour shortages, and other COVID-related challenges contributed to delays in adoption for some producers. Furthermore, unforeseen circumstances such as unseasonably wet or dry conditions were also noted in a number of performance reports. This led to some results falling short of targets, and some exceeding them.
In response to part (c), please see “Database: Agricultural Clean Technology Program projects” at Canada.ca for a cumulative listing of all projects approved and announced as of March 7, 2024, under the agricultural clean technology program, adoption stream and research and innovation stream.
Note that the number of approved projects was 352 as of January 2024, when this program information was provided for the commissioner of the environment and sustainable development’s report.
Question No. 2668—Mrs. Cheryl Gallant:
With regard to Health Canada's (HC) signing of the contract with Pfizer on October 26, 2020, and the subsequent release of the Pfizer mRNA COVID-19 vaccine to the Canadian public: (a) was HC aware of a presentation made to the Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee on October 22, 2020, where Dr. Steve Anderson at the US Food and Drug Administration's Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, presented "Plans for Monitoring COVID-19 Vaccine Safety and Effectiveness"; (b) if the answer to (a) is affirmative, did HC review the presentation deck, specifically slide #16, which identified a working list of 22 "possible adverse event outcomes", including acute myocardial infarction, stroke, myocarditis, pericarditis and death; (c) if the answer to (a) is negative, at what point did HC become aware of this presentation material or these serious adverse events of special interest; (d) once HC was in possession of this information, where and when did HC publish this list of 22 "possible adverse event outcomes" for the purpose of informing (i) the general public, (ii) medical physicians and hospitals, (iii) the media; (e) how did HC plan to independently and actively monitor these 22 "possible adverse event outcomes"; (f) did the initial Pfizer monograph posted on HC's website on December 9, 2020, and the ones posted thereafter identify any of these 22 "possible adverse event outcomes"; (g) when Pfizer vaccines were first being administered in early 2021, did HC require the sponsor to include a package insert in each mRNA vaccine vial containing a fully printed monograph of the product's ingredients and side effects including the identified 22 "possible adverse event outcomes" for both the consumer and the health professional to ensure full, informed consent; (h) if the answer to (g) is negative, (i) why was this not required, (ii) how was full, informed consent achieved at the time of vaccination; (i) did HC plan to actively monitor and publish the 1,291 "serious adverse events (SAEs) of special interest" which were contained in the Appendix of Pfizer's report of April 30, 2021, entitled "5.3.6 CUMULATIVE ANALYSIS OF POST-AUTHORIZATION ADVERSE EVENT REPORTS OF PF-07302048 (BNT162B2) RECEIVED THROUGH 28-FEB-2021" to ensure medical awareness of these potential SAEs; (j) if the answer to (i) is affirmative, (i) how were the SAEs monitored, (ii) what information was gathered; and (k) if the answer to (i) is negative, why are the 1,291 SAEs of special interest being monitored by the US Food and Drug Administration and not by HC?
Mr. Yasir Naqvi (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, Health Canada’s mandate is to help Canadians maintain and improve their health. The health and safety of Canadians is Health Canada’s top priority, and the department exercises stringent regulatory oversight over health products, including vaccines. Health Canada received Pfizer’s submission seeking authorization to its Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine on October 9, 2020, available at https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/news/2020/12/health-canada-authorizes-first-covid-19-vaccine0.html. The department is not a signing authority of purchasing contracts for health products, including COVID-19 vaccines.
Before a vaccine is approved in Canada, the Department conducts a rigorous scientific review of its safety, efficacy and quality. Submissions typically contain extensive data regarding the vaccine's safety, efficacy and quality, including results of pre-clinical and clinical studies, details on manufacturing processes, and information on adverse events following immunization, or AEFI. An authorization is only issued when benefits of the vaccine outweigh the risks of its use.
Following authorization, Canada has a robust and well-established vaccine safety surveillance system involving Health Canada, Public Health Agency of Canada, or PHAC, provinces and territories, and vaccine manufacturers. Health Canada continues to monitor the safety profile of health products once they are on the Canadian market, to help ensure that the benefits of the product continue to outweigh the risks. The safety profile of these products is monitored by reviewing safety information submitted by manufacturers as well as considering safety information from international regulators. When new safety issues are confirmed by the Department, Health Canada takes action, which may include communicating new risks to Canadians and healthcare professionals or changing the recommended use of the product.
In response to (a) to (e), Health Canada is aware of the referred presentation regarding FDA “Plans for Monitoring COVID-19 Vaccine Safety and Effectiveness”, which occurred at the Vaccines and Related Biologic Products Advisory Committee, or VRBPAC, held on October 22, 2020, including the slide #16 of the 22 “possible adverse event outcomes.” Since the authorization of the first COVID-19 vaccines in Canada on December 9, 2020, Health Canada has been monitoring possible adverse events including these 22 “possible adverse event outcomes.”
In addition, Health Canada and the PHAC have been actively monitoring and reviewing AEFI reports. All AEFI reports submitted by provincial and territorial public health authorities and federal departments are captured in the Canadian Adverse Events Following Immunization Surveillance System, or CAEFISS, which is managed by PHAC. In addition, the Canada Vigilance Program, or CVP, managed by Health Canada, receives AEFI reports from manufacturers, Canadian hospitals, healthcare professionals and consumers. Information about AEFIs reported in Canada, including some of the 22 “possible adverse event outcomes” is published on the Government of Canada’s website. It is important to note that these reports do not necessarily imply that a relationship between the adverse event and the vaccine has been established. However, they are an important information source supporting ongoing safety monitoring. Additional information is also available on the following public websites: COVID-19 Vaccine safety and side effects, at https://www.canada.ca/en/public-health/services/diseases/coronavirus-disease-covid-19/vaccines/safety-side-effects.html#a5; Vaccine safety and possible side effects, at https://www.canada.ca/en/public-health/services/vaccination-children/safety-concerns-side-effects.html; Health Product InfoWatch, at https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/drugs-health-products/medeffect-canada/health-product-infowatch/published-newsletters.html#a1; Pfizer-BioNTech Comirnaty COVID-19 Vaccine, at https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/drugs-health-products/covid19-industry/drugs-vaccines-treatments/vaccines/pfizer-biontech.html; and Regulatory Decision Summary of Pfizer-BioNTech Comirnaty COVID-19 Vaccine, at https://covid-vaccine.canada.ca/info/regulatory-decision-summary-detailTwo.html?linkID=RDS00730.
In response to (f) to (i), as part of the regulatory requirements, a product monograph is publicly released at the time of a vaccine’s authorization. The product monograph is developed and managed by the manufacturer. The content, wordings, and format are carefully reviewed by Health Canada to ensure that it is prepared in accordance with the Product monograph guidance documents and notices, found at Canada.ca. Updates of the product monograph are summarized in the Post-Authorization Activity Table (PAAT) at https://covid-vaccine.canada.ca/info/paat-SBD00510-comirnaty-en.html for Comirnaty.
A product monograph is a factual, scientific document on the drug product that, devoid of promotional material, describes the properties, claims, indications, and conditions of use for the drug, and that contains any other information that may be required for optimal, safe, and effective use of the drug. It is used to inform physicians, pharmacists, dentists, nurses, other healthcare professionals, and patients about the appropriate use of the product.
A package insert is also required at the time of a vaccine’s authorization. As noted above for the Canadian Product Monograph, at the time of authorization, the safety information included in package inserts was based on the available safety data from clinical trials. Furthermore, Health Canada is responsible for ensuring that the product monograph and package inserts are updated over time to adequately reflect the risks associated with the vaccines that are authorized in Canada. Health Canada-approved information is used by the appropriate bodies (e.g., provincial and local public health authorities, etc.) to guide recommendations, vaccine use, as well as information provided to vaccine recipients.
In response to (j) to (k), the referred report of 1,291 "serious adverse events (SAEs) of special interest" which were contained in Pfizer's report of April 30, 2021, entitled "5.3.6 CUMULATIVE ANALYSIS OF POST-AUTHORIZATION ADVERSE EVENT REPORTS OF PF-07302048 (BNT162B2) RECEIVED THROUGH 28-FEB-2021", was prepared by the manufacturer, Pfizer, for the US FDA. Health Canada reviewed safety reports submitted by the manufacturer including data from the referred report. The information reviewed did not identify new safety concerns and was consistent with the known safety profile of COMIRNATY. Outcomes of Health Canada’s safety reviews for COMIRNATY, as well as subsequent reviews, are available online at the Post Authorization Activity Table for COMIRNATY at https://covid-vaccine.canada.ca/info/post-authorization-activity-table.html?linkID=SBD00510.
To date, the benefits of these vaccines continue to outweigh their known risks.
Question No. 2669—Mr. Dean Allison:
With regard to the post-market surveillance used by Health Canada (HC) to monitor for safety concerns regarding the novel COVID-19 vaccine products: (a) have HC, the Public Health Agency of Canada (PHAC), Statistics Canada or any other federal agency or entity, department, or third-party agency used databases such as the Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences, the Ontario Health Data Platform or any other databases that collect realtime data to determine an individual's date of medical diagnoses, including death; (b) if the answer to (a) is affirmative, what are the anonymized individual results for the following new onset diagnoses, from December 1, 2020, to the present date, cross referenced with the date of receipt of COVID- 19 vaccine, the age by 5-year increments, the gender, and the province or territory of residence, (i) cerebral infraction, (ii) cerebral hemorrhage, (iii) sudden infant death syndrome, (iv) seizure, (v) acute myocarditis, (vi) pericarditis, (vii) transverse myelitis, (viii) miscarriage, (ix) Bell's palsy, (x) pancreatic cancer, (xi) esophageal cancer, (xii) anaphylaxis, (xiii) myocardial infraction, (xiv) breast cancer, (xv) pulmonary embolism, (xvi) deep vein thrombosis, (xvii) thrombocytopenia, (xviii) pulmonary hypertension (xix) lymphoma, (xx) ruptured aortic aneurysm, (xxi) cellulitis, (xxii) Guillain Barre syndrome, (xxiii) stillbirth, (xxiv) encephalopathy due to vaccination, (xxv) encephalopathy, (xxvi) sudden death, (xxvii) preeclampsia, (xxviii) premature birth, (xxix) multiple sclerosis, (xxx) hysterectomy, (xxxi) vasculitis; (c) what are the quarterly incidence rates of the diagnoses in (b) categorized by (i) age with 5-year increments, (ii) gender, (iii) province or territory of residence from January 1, 2014, to November 30, 2020; (d) if the answer to (a) is negative, what are the quarterly incidence rates of the diagnosis in (b) from December 1, 2020, to the present day, categorized by (i) age with 5-year increments, (ii) gender, (iii) province or territory of residence; (e) if the answer to (a) is affirmative, has this data been used to compare rates of medical diagnosis between never COVID-19 vaccinated individuals and others based on the number of COVID-19 injections received; (f) if the answer to (a) is affirmative, has this data been used to determine the length of time between receipt of a COVID-19 vaccine and the medical diagnosis or death, and, if so, what are the ranges of time; (g) if the answer to (a) is affirmative, will the raw data be released to independent researchers; (h) if the answer to (a) is negative, will the government make the raw anonymized data public; (i) if the answer to (a) is negative, what plans are either in place or planned to complete such an analysis in order to validate adverse event reporting systems that may be outdated for the COVID-19 vaccine products; (j) have there been any communications from or between HC, the PHAC, Statistics Canada, or any other federal agencies or their representatives about the Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences, the Ontario Health Data Platform, or any other similar database sources that capture receipt of COVID-19 vaccine(s) or booster(s) and clinical outcomes to monitor for safety signals; (k) if the answer to (j) is affirmative, which government agencies or out-sourced third parties were involved, and, for each, (i) what are the communications, (ii) who directed these communications, (iii) what were the dates of these communications, (iv) what was included in these communications, (v) what were the conclusions of these communications?
Mr. Yasir Naqvi (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a) to (g), the Public Health Agency of Canada, or PHAC, does not have access to provincial or territorial databases like the Ontario Health Data Platform that provide an individual-level information such as medical diagnoses or date of deaths. Similarly, PHAC does not have access to databases managed by the Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences.
Canada has a robust and well-established surveillance system to monitor for safety concerns for COVID-19 vaccines authorized in Canada, which involves monitoring by Health Canada, PHAC, provinces and territories, and vaccine manufacturers. Health Canada continues to monitor the safety profile of health products once they are on the Canadian market, to help ensure that the benefits of the product continue to outweigh the risks. The safety profile of these products is monitored by reviewing safety information submitted by manufacturers as well as considering safety information from international regulators and from adverse events following immunization, or AEFI, reports from healthcare professionals and consumers. When new safety issues are confirmed, Health Canada takes action, which may include communicating new risks to Canadians and healthcare professionals or changing the recommended use of the product.
In addition, Health Canada and the PHAC have been actively monitoring and reviewing AEFI reports. All AEFI reports submitted by provincial and territorial public health authorities and federal departments are captured in the Canadian Adverse Events Following Immunization Surveillance System, or CAEFISS, which is managed by PHAC. In addition, the Canada Vigilance Program, or CVP, managed by Health Canada, receives AEFI reports from manufacturers, Canadian hospitals, healthcare professionals and consumers. Information about AEFIs reported in Canada, including the reporting rates, is published on the Government of Canada’s website. In addition, the anonymized reports received from the CVP of Health Canada, including suspect AEFIs reported directly to the CVP, are available at https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/drugs-health-products/medeffect-canada/adverse-reaction-database.html. It is important to note that these reports do not necessarily imply that a relationship between the adverse event and the vaccine has been established. However, they are an important information source supporting ongoing safety monitoring.
Building on the existing robust pharmacovigilance system, Health Canada introduced strategies to enhance regulatory surveillance measures for COVID-19 vaccines. For example, terms and conditions in the document “Guidance for market authorization requirements for COVID-19 vaccines”, found at canada.ca, have been imposed on manufacturers to quickly request and gather critical safety and effectiveness information in order to mitigate risks during the product lifecycle. These enhanced regulatory surveillance measures enabled Health Canada to request additional risk monitoring activities and post-market studies, namely post-authorization studies on safety and effectiveness. These measures also provided tools for Health Canada to detect and evaluate emerging safety information on the benefit-risk balance of COVID-19 vaccines. As noted before, should there be new safety issues, Health Canada will take appropriate action(s).
With regard to (h), PHAC does not possess or have access to datasets with this type of information.
With regard to (i), Health Canada and PHAC have a robust vaccine safety surveillance system in place that engages healthcare professionals, vaccine manufacturers, and provincial and territorial health authorities. PHAC receives and reviews AEFI reports from provinces and territories, as submitted by health care providers through CAEFISS). The information provided by CAEFISS is complemented by the Canada Vigilance Program, Health Canada’s post-market surveillance program that collects and assesses reports of suspected adverse events to health products marketed in Canada. Manufacturers are required to report serious adverse events to Health Canada as the national regulatory authority, as well as submit regular summaries of global safety information. AEFI reports are monitored continuously by PHAC and Health Canada. Any new or unusual adverse events, or changes in trends or severity of specific events would trigger an investigation, including an in-depth medical review and risk assessment. As safety issues are investigated, Health Canada will take appropriate action as needed.
With regard to (j), PHAC is aware of provincial and territorial databases that include information about vaccinations and clinical outcomes following vaccination, among many other topics. However, PHAC receives AEFI reports from all provincial and territorial governments. For the purposes of adverse events following immunizations, provincial and territorial governments make the determination of the appropriate data sources for clinical and vaccination data necessary to generate and validate those reports that are submitted to PHAC for the purposes of surveillance.
Part (k) is not applicable.
Question No. 2670—Mr. Dean Allison:
With respect to Health Canada's (HC) review into the presence of SV40 and other DNA elements in the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine: (a) in July 2023, what was the basis for an Issue Analysis Summary (IAS) for the SV40 promoter agreed to by Drs Co Pham, Tong Wu and Michael Wall; (b) in July 2023, what was the rationale for HC to submit #1 Clarifax request to Pfizer and (i) what was the outcome of this request, (ii) did the response from the sponsor to #1 Quality Clarifax address all of HC's questions and concerns, and, if negative, what was missing, (iii) did Pfizer provide a complete justification for the SV40 sequences, (iv) did Pfizer provide an updated fully annotated table of functional elements of the plasmid, (v) did Pfizer include non-functional elements of the plasmid in the annotated table specifically addressing any unexpected open reading frames and other sequence elements, (vi) if the answer to (iii), (iv) and (v) is affirmative, what were the results, (vii) if the answer to (iii), (iv) and (v) is negative, what was HC's response; (c) with respect to the quantitative assay used to measure the residual DNA in order to confirm the presence of the SV40 promoter-enhancer, did HC confirm with Pfizer (i) the amplicon size used, (ii) the appropriateness of the primers used; (d) if the answer to (c) is affirmative, what was Pfizer's response; (e) if the answer to (c) is negative, has HC independently verified the total amounts of residual DNA, the appropriateness of the primers, and the amplicon size used by Pfizer to measure the residual DNA in the XBB.1.5 vials; (f) with respect to Pfizer's response in #1, #2 and #3 Quality Clarifaxes, did Pfizer provide the requested information on the fragment size analysis by December 1, 2023; (g) if the answer to (f) is affirmative, what were the results; (h) if the answer to (f) is negative, what was HC's response; (i) concerning the residual plasmid DNA in the drug substance, (i) did Pfizer provide the requested information on the characterization of residual circular DNA plasmid by December 1, 2023, (ii) did Pfizer provide the requested information on the risk of replication in bacterial cells by December 1, 2023, (iii) did HC at any time request information on the risk of replication in mammalian cells; (j) if the answer to (i)(i), (i)(ii) and (i)(iii) is affirmative, what were the results; (k) if the answer to (i)(i), (i)(ii), and (i)(iii) is negative, what was HC's response; (I) did HC request that Pfizer repeat the analyses for fragment size distribution and residual DNA for any of Pfizer COVID-19 vaccines (i.e., original or bivalent); (m) if the answer to (l) is affirmative, what were the findings; (n) if the answer to (l) is negative, why not; (o) did HC independently verify the quantity of residual DNA, the size distribution and the presence of SV40 sequences in the XBB.1.5. vaccine, or any other COVID-19 vaccine submitted by Pfizer for review; (p) at any time, did Pfizer ever suggest that the regulatory sequence elements in question were functional with respect to the manufacturing process, and, if so, what was the function; (q) at any time, did Plizer ever suggest that regulatory sequence elements in question were functional following inoculation into humans; and (r) if the answer to (p) is affirmative, what and when did Pfizer inform HC?
Mr. Yasir Naqvi (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, in response to (a) to (r), the health and safety of Canadians are Health Canada’s top priority. The department exercises stringent regulatory oversight over vaccines, and conducts a rigorous scientific review of their safety, efficacy and quality prior to authorization. In July 2023, Health Canada evaluated the presence of the SV40 promoter/enhancer sequence in the plasmid used to prepare the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine, or COMIRNATY, as well as in residual DNA as a manufacturing impurity in the final vaccine product. Clarification requests are routinely issued during submission review to seek clarifications on various aspects of the file. Health Canada submitted a clarification request to Pfizer seeking additional information related to the SV40 sequences. Pfizer provided a reply to address all of Health Canada’s questions. Please note that communications between Health Canada and manufacturers related to the manufacturing and control of a vaccine are considered confidential business information that cannot be disclosed.
The residual plasmid DNA levels measured by the manufacturer, using approved validated methods, were provided to Health Canada and was consistently below the limit of 10 nanograms per human dose. In addition, all COMIRNATY commercial vaccine batches, released in Canada, complied with the quality requirements approved by Health Canada, including the requirements for residual DNA. An Issue Analysis Summary, or IAS, was initially considered to document the process but was later deemed to be unnecessary as the residual DNA content in the final product was consistently below the limit of 10 nanograms per human dose, which is in line with the World Health Organization’s recommendation concerning residual DNA in biological drugs.
The presence of residual plasmid DNA in the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines is considered a manufacturing impurity and does not change the safety assessment of these vaccines by Health Canada.
Question No. 2672—Mrs. Cathay Wagantall:
With respect to Canada’s Vaccine Injury Support Program (VISP): (a) how many claims have been filed to the program from December 8, 2020, to present day, broken down by age group; (b) how many of those claims have been approved, broken down by age group; (c) of the approved claims, what have been the diagnoses and their frequencies, broken down by age group, date approved, and the corresponding COVID-19 vaccines that were administered; (d) of the approved claims, what are the percentages of Canadians who received (i) the AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine, (ii) the J&J COVID-19 vaccine, (iii) any COVID-19 vaccine produced by Pfizer-BioNTech, (iv) any COVID-19 vaccine produced by Moderna, (v) a combination of COVID-19 vaccines; (e) how many persons have received compensation to date through the VISP; (f) what is the total compensation to date given to vaccine-injured Canadians; (g) what is the age of the youngest person who received funding support approval through the VISP, and their associated diagnosis; (h) for all death claims, (i) what is the total number of death claims that have been filed to VISP, (ii) of the total, what have been the underlying causes of death, aside from the vaccine and their frequencies, (iii) how many filed death claims have been approved by the VISP and their corresponding diagnosis and vaccine status; (i) did the VISP require autopsies prior to approving a death claim; (j) if the answer to (i) is affirmative, what immunohistochemistry requirements does the VISP specify for these autopsies; (k) when denied, how many persons have appealed their claim and how many have been successful; (l) regarding the determination of causality of the adverse event in relation to a COVID-19 vaccine, (i) what is the standard criteria, (ii) does the Medical Review Board take into consideration the Bradford Hill criteria; (m) what are the professional qualifications of each member on the Medical Review Board; and (n) who are the professionals on the Medical Review Board?
Mr. Yasir Naqvi (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the Pan-Canadian Vaccine Injury Support Program, or VISP, provides financial support to people in Canada in the rare event that they experience a serious and permanent injury as a result of receiving a Health Canada authorized vaccine, administered in Canada, on or after December 8, 2020. The program also provides death benefits and support for funeral expenses in the rare case of a death as a result of receiving a Health Canada authorized vaccine.
The Pan-Canadian VISP was launched on June 1, 2021, and is being administered independently by OXARO, formerly known as Raymond Chabot Grant Thornton Consulting Inc., with funding from the Public Health Agency of Canada, or PHAC. This program is available for people who were vaccinated in all provinces except Quebec. PHAC is not involved in individual cases, including in the determination of decisions regarding causality or compensation.
As the independent administrator, OXARO operates at arm’s length from PHAC and oversees all aspects of claims intake and assessment. OXARO is responsible for providing periodic public reporting on program statistics. Public reporting began on December 1, 2021, and data on the pan-Canadian VISP is updated twice a year. Latest public reporting can be found at https://vaccineinjurysupport.ca/en/program-statistics. The latest reporting shows the program statistics as of December 1, 2023. The next update will be available in June 2024.
The province of Quebec continues to administer its longstanding Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, or VICP, for people vaccinated in that province, with federal funding. Information on Quebec’s VICP, including program statistics as of March 31, 2023, can be found at https://www.quebec.ca/en/health/advice-and-prevention/vaccination/vaccine-injury-compensation-program#c3895.
In response to questions (a), (b), (e), (f), and (k), as of OXARO’s last public report on December 1, 2023, OXARO had received 2233 claims; approved 138 claims by Medical Review Board; received 102 claims of appeals; approved 6 appeals; and paid $11.236 million in financial support to eligible claimants.
As of Quebec’s last public report on March 1, 2023, since 1988, Quebec had received 410 claims; approved 56 claims; received 92 claims of appeals; approved 9 appeals; and paid $9.397 million in financial support to eligible claimants.
These program statistics, including the claims received, claims approved and appeals, can also be found on the OXARO website. Information on Quebec’s Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, for those vaccinated in Quebec, can be found on the Quebec provincial website.
In response to questions and sub-questions (a) broken down by age group, (b) broken down by age group, (c) what have been the diagnoses and their frequencies, broken down by age group, date approved, and the corresponding COVID-19 vaccines that were administered, (d), (g), (h), (i) and (j), the implementation model used by the Government of Canada, a contribution agreement subject to the Policy on Transfer Payments, means that OXARO’s work occurs independently and at arm’s length from PHAC. As a result, PHAC does not request nor receive any information regarding individual claims received by OXARO nor data related to demographics, types of vaccines, or the nature of vaccine injuries.
In response to questions (l), (m) and (n),with regards to the physicians conducting the medical board reviews and assessment process followed, OXARO has advised PHAC that they ensure the medical experts hold both a valid license with their respective College of Physicians and a valid Canadian Medical Protective Association membership across Canada. Depending on the nature of the injury, the team of medical experts assembled to review a claim can include specialists, such as cardiologists and neurologists. This is done to provide a comprehensive analysis of each claim. Medical review boards use a causality assessment process developed by OXARO that is based on accepted industry practices and the World Health Organization’s guidance on the causality assessment of an adverse event following immunization.
Question No. 2675—Mr. John Williamson:
With regard to the government’s announcement on August 12, 2021 to invest $1.44 billion into Telesat’s advanced low Earth orbit (LEO) satellite constellation, Telesat Lightspeed: (a) what are the details of government purchases or sales of Telesat equity or shares since the announcement, including, for each, the (i) date, (ii) total price or amount, (iii) type of transaction (bought or sold), (iv) number of shares or percentage of equity, (v) share price, if applicable; and (b) what is the government’s current equity stake in Telesat in terms of value, percentage of equity, and number of shares?
Hon. François-Philippe Champagne (Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the terms of the 2021 agreement-in-principle were never finalized and have since been superseded. As such, the government has not disbursed any funds or received any equity for Telesat’s Lightspeed Low Earth Orbit satellite project.
Since then, both Telesat’s and the Government’s plans have been updated. The government remains in discussions with Telesat regarding a potential investment in the project.
Question No. 2683—Mr. Kyle Seeback:
With regard to the recently announced emissions cap on Canada's oil and gas sector: (a) what assessments has the Government of Canada made regarding the economic impact on Gross Domestic Product and Export amounts, by dollar, for Canada; (b) has the government analyzed and reviewed the potential impact to Canadian firms that export energy products, and, if so, what are the details; (c) has the government considered the potential economic fallout in terms of job losses across the energy sector, at the provincial and territorial level, and, if so, what were the findings; (d) prior to the announcement of the emissions cap, did the government engage in any public relations or briefings with non-government organizations (NGO), the United Nations, and any sub-directorates of the United Nations at the ministerial level, and, if so, what was the nature of those discussions and the result of those discussions; (e) did the government procure any NGO or outside-of-government entities or actors to raise the subject within the Canadian media sphere, and, if so, who was involved and how much money was spent on these endeavors; and (f) what are the financial and contractual details of all memorandums and briefing notes, scope documents and economic impact analysis about the emissions cap that were sent to, or received by, the Minister of Export Promotion, International Trade and Economic Development, the Minister of the Environment and Climate Change, and the Minister of Finance, as well as any relevant ministerial offices and other involved ministers, deputy ministers, assistant deputy ministers regarding the emissions cap policy file, from 2016 to 2024?
Hon. Steven MacKinnon (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada has committed to cap and reduce greenhouse gas, or GHG, emissions from the oil and gas sector at a pace and scale necessary to contribute to Canada’s 2030 climate goals, to achieve net-zero GHG emissions by 2050, and in a way that allows the sector to compete in the emerging net-zero global economy. As the country’s largest source of GHG emissions and the only major source that continues to grow, decarbonizing the oil and gas sector is critical to achieving Canada’s emission targets. The sector is also an economic powerhouse, proven innovator, and source of good jobs. The emissions cap will help decarbonize oil and gas production to make Canada a highly efficient producer supplying global demand and ensure the sector is on a path to net-zero by 2050. The emissions cap is an integral piece of the Government of Canada’s roadmap to support the decarbonization of oil and gas production.
On July 18, 2022, the government published a discussion paper outlining two regulatory options to cap GHG emissions from the oil and gas sector: a new national GHG emissions cap-and-trade system, and modifications to existing carbon pricing systems. The discussion document sought feedback on the two options, and generated a significant response. Environment and Climate Change Canada, or ECCC, received over 150 submissions from provinces and territories, indigenous organizations, industry, environmental non-governmental organizations, and academics, as well as over 25,000 comments from members of the public. Feedback on the discussion paper has informed the government’s approach on this important policy.
In addition to the formal comment period, the Government of Canada has held a significant number of information webinars and bilateral meetings with various partners and interested parties. Information gathered and feedback received during this engagement has been taken into consideration in the design of the proposed regulatory approach.
On December 7, 2023, the Government of Canada published a regulatory framework to cap and cut emissions in the oil and gas sector for a 60-day public comment period. The government received 107 formal written submissions from provinces and territories, indigenous organizations, industry, environmental non-governmental organizations, and academics, as well as over 35,000 comments from members of the public. Feedback on the regulatory framework is being used to inform the development of proposed regulations.
The Government of Canada plans to publish proposed regulations in 2024 in Part I of the Canada Gazette for a 60-day public comment period. The impacts of the policy will be assessed as part of the regulatory process and published in the regulatory impacts analysis statement that accompanies the proposed regulations. Formal written comments will also be sought on the proposal at that time. Publication of the final regulations is targeted for 2025, with the first reporting obligations starting as early as 2026 and full system requirements phased in between 2026 and 2030.
The Government of Canada has not procured any non-government organizations or outside-of-government entities or actors to raise the subject within the Canadian media sphere. The government has not put in place any contracts to support analysis related to the oil and gas emissions cap.
Question No. 2685—Mr. Tony Baldinelli:
With regard to the Treasury Board Secretariat (TBS) hybrid workforce model for the federal public service: (a) has the TBS ever sought the opinion of the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada regarding the concern for and risk of privacy and data breaches of sensitive and confidential information of Canadian citizens that may be caused with malicious intent such as a cyberattack, accident, or negligence, and, if so, when was the opinion sought and what was the opinion; and (b) is the TBS aware of any privacy and data breaches that have occurred with federal workers operating off-site since March 16, 2020, as a result of working from home on unsecured networks, devices, software, or hardware, and, if so, what are the details of each breach including for each the (i) date, (ii) department or agency involved, (iii) summary of what occurred, (iv) number of individuals whose information was impacted, (v) type of information breached, (vi) length of time until the breach was resolved, (vii) details on if and how those whose information was breached were notified, (viii) date on which the Privacy Commissioner was notified, if applicable?
Mr. Anthony Housefather (Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), in the context of the hybrid work model for the federal public service, the Information and Privacy Policy Division of the Treasury Board Secretariat, or TBS, engaged the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada, or OPC, on Access to Information and Privacy Implementation Notice 2020-01: Guidance on delays resulting from measures to mitigate the impact of novel Coronavirus, or COVID-19, on federal workplaces, in March 2020; and the implementation of departmental verification processes that support the irection on prescribed presence in the workplace, in February 2023.
TBS did not consult the OPC specifically on the concern for and risk of privacy and data breaches of sensitive and confidential information of Canadian citizens that may be caused with malicious intent such as a cyberattack, accident, or negligence.
With regard to (b), Appendix A to the TBS Policy on Privacy Protection provides for the following definitions:
Privacy breach means the improper or unauthorized access to, creation, collection, use, disclosure, retention, or disposal of personal information.
Material privacy breach means a privacy breach that could reasonably be expected to create a real risk of significant harm to an individual. Significant harm includes bodily harm, humiliation, damage to reputation or relationships, loss of employment, business or professional opportunities, financial loss, identity theft, negative effects on the credit record and damage to or loss of property.
As per section 4.2.8 of the Policy, heads of government institutions or their delegates are responsible for reporting material privacy breaches to TBS and to the OPC after making efforts to contain, assess and mitigate the breach. Consequently, as per sections 5.2.6 and 5.3.4 of the policy, respectively, TBS and the Privacy Commissioner of Canada are responsible for receiving and reviewing material privacy breach reports.
While TBS centrally tracks certain details related to material privacy breach reports submitted by federal institutions subject to the Privacy Act, it does not track the employee’s work location at the time of the breach. TBS does not centrally track or otherwise receive any details related to non-material privacy reaches.
Question No. 2686—Ms. Leslyn Lewis:
With regard to the Known Traveller Digital Identity (KTDI) project announced by the government in January 2018 and the successor pilot on Digital Travel Credentials (DTCs): (a) what is the current status of both projects; (b) why was the decision made to not resume the KTDI; (c) how was the data, including personal data, that was obtained through the KTDI used; (d) was the data, including personal data, that was obtained through the KTDI retained, and, if so, by whom, including the country, territory, organization, and company details, including (i) which types of data were retained, (ii) where is the data stored; (e) what is the nature of the government's involvement, including its agencies, in the new DTC project; (f) what is the World Economic Forum’s involvement in the new project, if any; (g) who are the project partners; (h) what is the end date of the DTC project; (i) how many Canadian travellers opted into the project to date; (j) for travellers who have been participating in the project, what type of data was shared with (i) the government, (ii) third parties; (k) what third parties received the data in (j)(ii); (l) what specific technologies is the government testing, and what are the parameters around that testing; (m) what (i) benefits of, (ii) problems with, the technologies have been identified to date; and (n) what are the total government expenditures related to the KTDI and DTC projects since 2018, broken down by type of expenditure?
Hon. Pablo Rodriguez (Minister of Transport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, in regard to (a), Transport Canada, or TC, officially ended its participation in the Known Traveler Digital Identity, or KTDI, project in April 2023. The KTDI Project never launched.
The Digital Travel Credentials, or DTC, pilot project launched on January 7, 2024, and ended on March 31, 2024.
In regard to (b), the KTDI project was delayed indefinitely due to the COVID-19 pandemic in March 2020. In April 2023, TC and the Kingdom of the Netherlands notified the World Economic Forum that they had officially ended their participation due to resource constraints, travel restrictions and competing priorities.
In regard to (c), as the KTDI project was never officially launched, no data was obtained.
In regard to (d), as the KTDI project was never launched, no data of any type was retained or stored.
In regard to (e), TC facilitated the DTC pilot project with KLM Royal Dutch Airlines, or KLM, and the Kingdom of the Netherlands by assisting KLM in receiving a ministerial exemption order from Public Safety Canada for sections 4 and 4.1 of the Secure Air Travel Regulations to allow their use of facial recognition technology in a live pilot to verify the identity of participating passengers at the boarding gate for flights destined to the Kingdom of the Netherlands.
A condition of the ministerial exemption was for KLM to ensure that all passenger participation in the DTC pilot project be voluntary.
In regard to (f), the World Economic Forum was not involved in any capacity with KLM’s DTC pilot project.
In regard to (g), the DTC pilot project partners were KLM, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, and the Montreal-Trudeau International Airport where the live pilot was hosted in Canada for departing flights.
In regard to (h), the DTC pilot project concluded on March 31, 2024.
In regard to (i), as TC did not collect any data from the DTC pilot project, the total number or citizenship of the passengers who volunteered for the pilot is unknown.
In regard to (j) (i) and (ii), no data from the DTC pilot project has been shared with TC, and no data was shared with Canadian third parties, such as the Montreal-Trudeau International Airport.
In regard to (k), no third parties received data.
In regard to (l), TC did not conduct testing as the DTC pilot project was industry-run by KLM in partnership with the Kingdom of the Netherlands.
In regard to (m), as the DTC pilot project was run by KLM, its results, including (i) benefits of, and (ii) problems with the technology, are commercially proprietary. Further information may be available from KLM and the Kingdom of the Netherlands.
In regard to (n), during the length of TC’s participation in the KTDI project, TC’s expenditures totalled $399,938 on salaries and $238,627 on other operating costs.
There are no government expenditures by TC in relation to the DTC pilot project run by KLM and the Kingdom of the Netherlands.
Question No. 2687—Ms. Leslyn Lewis:
With regard to government information on weather modification activities in Canada since 2015: (a) what weather modification activities is the government aware have taken place, including, but not limited to, cloud seeding or modification, hail suppression, fog dissipation, precipitation modification, lightning modification, hurricane seeding; (b) what are the (i) start and end dates of the activities in (a), (ii) stated objectives, (iii) geographic areas affected; (c) what techniques, chemicals and equipment are involved in each of the known weather modification activities; (d) is the government aware of any unlawful or disputed weather modification activities in Canada, and, if so, what are the details including the dates and summaries of each activity; (e) what, if any, government support or funding is provided to any of the activities in (a); (f) which government departments or agencies are involved in activities in (e), and what are the program objectives and research areas; (g) which, if any, international entities are involved in any of the activities; and (h) what outcomes and impacts have been observed by these activities and the methods and chemicals employed, including impacts on the environment, storm severity, and any other impacts?
Hon. Steven Guilbeault (Minister of Environment and Climate Change, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), since 1996, only one company has reported undertaking weather modification activities in Canada, Weather Modification Inc., which operates a hail suppression program in Alberta.
With regard to (b), annual operations happen between June 1 and September 15 each year. The objective of the cloud seeding operations is to reduce hail damage caused by thunderstorms in central and southern Alberta.
With regard to (c)(i), according to the 2023 Atlantic High-Skilled Program, or AHSP, notice of intent, clouds are seeded either from the base or from the top. Cloud base seeding involves releasing silver iodide, or AgI, particles at the base of updraft areas near the cloud base, which then get transported up to the clouds through the updraft winds. Cloud top seeding, conducted between the levels of -5 and -10 degrees Celsius, involves dropping flares into the cloud which release AgI and will penetrate the edges of single convective cells meeting the seed criteria. Factors that determine cloud top or cloud base seeding are storm structure, visibility, cloud base height, or time available to reach seeding altitude.
With regard to (c) (ii), AgI is used as the primary seeding agent.
With regard to (c) (iii), according to the 2020 and 2021 AHSP Notices of Intent, five aircraft are used every season to execute on the operations, which are tagged as Hailstop 1 to Hailstop 5. Between 2015 and 2020, the fleet included three Beechcraft King Air C90 prop-jet aircraft and two Cessna C340 aircraft, and since 2021 the fleet consists simply of five Beechcraft King Air C90 prop-jet aircraft. The operational equipment also consists of one C-band Doppler weather radar, 250 kilowatt peak power, with 1.65 degree beam width, located at the Olds-Didsbury airport, 15.3 metres tower-mounted, including a radome, as per the 2020 and 2021 AHSP Notice of Intent.
With regard to (d), to date, Environment and Climate Change Canada, or ECCC, is not aware of any weather modification activities in Canada that would violate the Weather Modification Information Act, other Acts administered by ECCC.
With regard to (e), ECCC does not provide any funding in support of this activity.
With regard to (f), there are no government agencies responsible for the activities in part (e) at the federal level.
With regard to (g), Weather Modification International works under contract to conduct cloud seeding operations on behalf of the Alberta Severe Weather Management Society, or ASWMS. They are an American organization based in Fargo, North Dakota, as per the 2023 AHSP Notice of Intent.
With regard to (h), the emissions produced by AgI, as a seeding agent, are considered to have negligible environmental or human health impacts according to a screening assessment done by ECCC and Health Canada.
Question No. 2690—Ms. Leslyn Lewis:
With regard to Canada’s participation in the World Economic Forum Annual Meeting in Davos, Switzerland, from January 15 to 19, 2024: (a) how many individuals were part of Canada’s delegation; (b) who were the members of the delegation, including, for each, their (i) name, (ii) title, (iii) role; (c) what are the details of all meetings held in Davos involving the Deputy Prime Minister, including, for each, the (i) date, (ii) names and titles of the attendees, (iii) purpose of the meeting, (iv) agenda items, (v) summary of what occurred at the meeting, including any agreements made; (d) what are the details of all meetings held in Davos involving members of the Canadian delegation other than the Deputy Prime Minister, including, for each, the (i) date, (ii) names and titles of the attendees, (iii) purpose of the meeting, (iv) agenda items, (v) summary of what occurred at the meeting, including anything that was agreed to; (e) what are the details, including the summary of terms, of any agreements entered into during the forum; (f) what are the details of all follow-up action taken by the government as a result of what happened at the forum; (g) what are the details of all memoranda or briefing notes prepared to support Canada’s delegation to the forum, including, for each, the (i) date, (ii) sender, (iii) recipient, (iv) title, (v) subject matter, (vi) summary of contents, (vii) file number; and (h) what was the total cost to the taxpayer, broken down by category of expense?
Hon. Chrystia Freeland (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the Department of Finance response to parts (a) through (h) is as follows:
The World Economic Forum Annual Meeting was held in Davos, Switzerland, from January 15 to 19, 2024. As the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance, I attended from January 16 to January 19, 2024, to advance Canadian economic interests.
I held meetings with business leaders and other participants, including members of the Ukrainian delegation; a variety of business leaders about opportunities for Canada; and foreign government leaders and elected representatives.
I also participated in a panel entitled “No Recovery without Trade and Investment". Participants included Brian Moynihan, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Bank of America; Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala, Director-General of the World Trade Organization; and Valdis Dombrovskis, European Commissioner for Trade.
Regarding the Department of Finance response to part (h): please note that travel expenditures for senior level departmental officers or employees, Ministers, ministerial advisors and ministerial staff are proactively disclosed on Open.Canada.ca (https://search.open.canada.ca/travel/).
Question No. 2691—Ms. Leslyn Lewis:
With regard to the Canada Infrastructure Bank's (CIB) investment in the Avenue Living residential retrofits: (a) what is the summary of the terms of the project agreement with Avenue Living; (b) which properties are undergoing retrofits financed by the CIB; (c) at which properties is the CIB aware of significant rent increases since the financial close of the agreement; (d) how much of the investment has been disbursed to date and how has that financing been disbursed; (e) what is the current status of each of the retrofit projects at Avenue Living properties; (f) what measures did the CIB take when the investment agreement was made to ensure the investment would not be used as a rationale to increase rent; (g) if the answer to (f) is none, why were no measures taken; (h) what, if any, changes to the agreement will the CIB make in light of the rent increases at some properties; and (i) what changes is the CIB implementing to ensure its financing of retrofits do not result in rent increases at rental properties?
Mr. Chris Bittle (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Housing, Infrastructure and Communities, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to the investment of the Canada Infrastructure Bank, or CIB, in the Avenue Living residential retrofits, with regard to (a), the CIB’s investment is structured as two corporate loans, together the “CIB credit facility”, to two Avenue Living entities, together, “Avenue Living”, that wholly own the properties being considered for decarbonization retrofits, each a “project”. Drawdowns under the CIB credit facility are made available to Avenue Living pursuant to a four-year availability period up to a maximum amount of 80% of total eligible project costs net of grants, not to exceed $130 million in aggregate. The aggregate amount drawn will convert to a fully amortizing term loan which at the earliest of the completion of the final project; or one year following the end of the availability period. The CIB’s investment must be fully repaid within 24 years of financial close.
With regard to (b), Avenue Living has not used the CIB credit facility to finance retrofits of any properties as of May 3, 2024. Avenue Living has identified a preliminary list of approximately 95 properties that it intends to retrofit with CIB financing. The proposed portfolio consists of approximately 240 buildings, all of which are bound by specific eligibility criteria, including a required minimum decarbonization threshold. In accordance with the provisions of the CIB credit facility, Avenue Living can add, remove or replace properties in the preliminary list throughout the availability period, subject to meeting the defined eligibility criteria and satisfying the minimum decarbonization threshold, always subject to the term of the availability period and the maximum aggregate CIB investment amount.
With regard to (c), the CIB is not privy to any information related to specific properties and rent increases. Furthermore, Avenue Living has not used the CIB credit facility to finance retrofits of any properties as of May 3, 2024.
With regard to (d), no disbursements under the CIB credit facility have been made to Avenue Living as of May 3, 2024.
With regard to (e), all projects are at various stages of early development as of May 3, 2024, with certain properties further along and nearing eligibility criteria and conditions for disbursements under the CIB credit facility.
With regard to (f), the core mandate of the CIB’s Building Retrofits Initiative, or BRI, is to reduce investment barriers to modernize and improve the energy efficiency of existing buildings to drive significant reduction in carbon emissions, which additionally will improve the living conditions for tenants through co-benefits. In the case of Avenue Living, each project is subject to meeting specific minimum decarbonization targets and the potential CIB investment was assessed on that basis. The CIB credit facility was agreed on terms that made those reductions economically feasible. Also, Avenue Living is bound under the CIB credit facility by requirements to comply with applicable law, including any applicable landlord-tenant laws, regulations and policies in effect at the time in the relevant jurisdictions. The goal for Avenue Living is to achieve a greenhouse gas, or GHG, remissions reduction of over 49% across the portfolio of retrofitted projects, while maintaining a required minimum annual GHG reduction threshold of at least 30% for each building.
With regard to (g), while an indirect benefit of the CIB credit facility is to lower the economic burden on Avenue Living and its tenants that benefit from retrofits, the core mandate of the CIB’s BRI is to support existing property owners in reducing investment barriers to modernize and improve the energy efficiency of existing buildings, which dictates the specific provisions included in any given credit agreement.
With regard to (h), CIB understands that affordability is a critical issue for Canadians, which is why going forward we are ensuring residential building upgrades financed by CIB will not be used as a rationale to increase rent. Avenue Living and the CIB continue to discuss this matter.
With regard to (i), for all subsequent CIB investments under the BRI that finance retrofitting of multi-unit residential buildings, the loan agreements will include provisions that limit a borrower’s ability to increase rents or impose additional utility burdens on existing tenants as a result of the CIB’s investment in the decarbonization retrofits.
Question No. 2692—Ms. Niki Ashton:
With regard to Canada Revenu Agency registered charities: (a) which charities that had Israeli nationals as agents or intermediaries had their status revoked due to a failed audit between 2017 and 2023; (b) which charities that had Israeli nationals as agents or intermediaries failed audits between 2017 and 2023 and did not have their status revoked; (c) what are the internal rules, regulations, and protocols around revocation of charity status with regard to both domestic and international recipients; and (d) what are the CRA’s risk assessment tools, and the risk matrix surrounding charities with international intermediaries?
Hon. Marie-Claude Bibeau (Minister of National Revenue, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with respect to my colleague’s question, what follows is the response from the Canada Revenue Agency, or CRA, as of May 3, 2024, that is, the date of question.
With regard to (a) and (b), the CRA does not collect information on the nationality of a registered charity’s agents or intermediaries.
With regard to (c), in order to be registered as a charity, an organization must be constituted exclusively for charitable purposes and devote all of its resources to activities that further those purposes. Charitable purposes fall into one or more of the following categories: the relief of poverty; the advancement of education; the advancement of religion; and other purposes beneficial to the community.
The Income Tax Act allows a registered charity to operate in the following ways: carrying on its own charitable activities through its staff and volunteers; or an intermediary, where a charity must exercise direction and control over its own resources; making qualifying disbursements through gifts to qualified donees; or grants to grantees, or non-qualified donees, where a charity must meet accountability requirements.
A registered charity’s purposes must also provide a tangible benefit to the public as a whole, or a significant section of it. In addition, purposes and activities that are illegal in Canada or contrary to Canadian public policy are prohibited, including support for terrorist and military activities.
Also, registered charities must keep adequate books and records to allow the CRA to verify donations made to the charity, to ensure the proper use of charitable resources, and that the charity's purposes and activities continue to be charitable.
As is always the case, in order to determine if a particular activity furthers a charitable purpose and meets all other registration requirements under the Income Tax Act, the CRA would need to consider all the relevant facts on a case-by-case basis. If the CRA identifies non-compliance as a result of an audit, it uses a risk-based approach where possible. By taking this approach, the CRA generally gives a charity the opportunity to correct non-compliance through education or a compliance agreement; while other interventions, such as sanctions or revocations, are reserved for cases where a charity has engaged in more serious acts of non-compliance. The facts of the charity’s case will determine which compliance approach the CRA will take.
The CRA makes its decisions around the audit of registered charities involved with “domestic and international recipients” based on the Income Tax Act and common law requirements for registered charities. The application of these requirements is applied regardless of the country in which a charity may operate, and/or the nationality of any agents and intermediaries they may choose to engage.
With regard to (d), sensitive information about the CRA’s internal processes, such as its risk assessment strategies, audit techniques, and file selection reasons, as well as any other information that a member of the public would otherwise be ineligible from accessing, cannot be disclosed. Given that this type of information could be used to undermine and potentially jeopardize the CRA's compliance efforts, the CRA does not disclose that type of information to external parties under any circumstance, even where authorization on specific taxpayer files is obtained.
Question No. 2697—Ms. Christine Normandin:
With regard to defence procurement contracts since 2015: what have been the industrial and technological benefits, broken down by province and territory?
Hon. François-Philippe Champagne (Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada, or ISED, publishes an Industrial and Technological Benefits, or ITB, Annual Report in an effort to be transparent about the results and status of the ITB Policy. The most recent ITB Annual Report, in 2023, highlights, at a national level, the impact of ITB obligations active in 2022, which presents a point in time snapshot using the latest available data. The report provides information on obligations over the 15-year time period from 2017 to 2033. This timeframe is used for the annual report to reflect the achievement period of ITB obligations by prime contractors, which can last a number of years. The report was updated in fall 2023 and is published annually to provide information on leveraging current and planned military procurements. The 2022 Annual Report presents data beginning 2016; the 2021 Annual Report presents data beginning 2015.
The 2023 ITB Annual Report, specifically page 5, which shows a breakdown by region of ITB activity in Canada. This includes figures broken out across the regions of Western Canada, Ontario, Quebec and Atlantic Canada, and shows activity broken down by sector, such as aerospace, marine, information technology and land-based something, space and “other industries”. As an example, the ITB business activity in Quebec over the reporting period is focused on aerospace, 68%, followed by information technology and land-based something, 20%, marine, 8%, space, 2% and other industries, 2%. For the purposes of reporting and given the need to aggregate data values, projects in the territories are captured under Western Canada.
Foundation data for the overall eport is based on ITB credits and commitments of ITB obligations active in 2022, over the 2017-2033 15-year period, as found specified on each slide. Page 4 provides information on the annual average economic impact of the ITB Policy based on ITB transactions credited over the 2017-2021 period from ITB obligations active in 2022. Economic impact estimates are reported at the national level and cannot be broken down at the regional level; economic impact methodologies principles are presented on page 12.
In addition to the ITB Annual Report, ISED also publishes a report on contractor progress each year to demonstrate contractors’ progress in fulfilling their ITB obligations. The report on contractor progress provides information broken down by project and by contractor. This information includes the amount of obligation, completed, in progress and not identified.Report on Contractor Progress
In processing parliamentary returns, the government applies the Privacy Act and the principles set out in the Access to Information Act, and certain information has been withheld on the grounds that it is third party information.
:
Mr. Speaker, if the government's responses to Questions Nos. 2653, 2655 to 2657, 2671, 2673, 2674, 2676 to 2682, 2684, 2688, 2689, 2693 to 2696, 2698, and 2699, could be made orders for return, these returns would be tabled in an electronic format immediately.
The Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Text]
Question No. 2653—Ms. Lianne Rood:
With regard to Report 5 (2024) of the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development to the Parliament of Canada: (a) how much has the Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food spent in the past five years on developing a climate change mitigation strategy; (b) how many employees were or are assigned to work on the strategy; and (c) how was the money spent, broken down by initiative?
(Return tabled)
Question No. 2655—Mr. Michael Cooper:
With regard to Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) and the temporary public policy creating permanent resident pathways for Hong Kong residents since 2021, broken down by year: (a) how many individuals of Hong Kong origin have immigrated to Canada under the permanent residency program, broken down by (i) economic class migration, (ii) the family reunification program, (iii) the refugees and protected persons class, (iv) the "humanitarian and other" class, broken down by individualized stream; (b) how many individuals of Hong Kong origin have applied for permanent residency on "humanitarian and compassionate grounds" separately from the temporary public policy permanent residency pathways since 2021; (c) with regard to the temporary public policy, what is the breakdown of the application numbers since 2021 for (i) Stream A, (ii) Stream B, broken down by PR category; (d) of the figures in (c), how many applications were (i) approved, (ii) rejected, (iii) under review; (e) of the rejections in (d), what are the categorized reasons for rejecting the application, broken down by number; (f) of the cases under review and rejections in (c), what is the breakdown of the applications by (i) individual applications, (ii) family applications; and (g) of the approvals in (c), how many were tied to existing departmental quotas for the temporary public policy or the department's annual planned admission range per IRCC's annual report for permanent residency admissions under (i) economic class migration, (ii) the family reunification program, (iii) the refugees and protected persons class, (iv) the "humanitarian and other" class?
(Return tabled)
Question No. 2656—Mr. Michael Cooper:
With regard to Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) and the open work permit pathway under a temporary public policy for Hong Kong residents: (a) what is the number of applications received by individuals of Hong Kong origin with "HKPPTR" inputted for the job title since the program was instituted in 2021; (b) of the applications in (a), how many were (i) accepted, (ii) rejected, (iii) under review; (c) of the rejections in (b), what is the breakdown of rejections by the location of the IRCC office or processing center; and (d) how many applications were rejected based on the lack of labour market impact assessment?
(Return tabled)
Question No. 2657—Mr. Michael Cooper:
With regard to the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada (IRB): (a) what is the total number of adjudicators at the Refugee Protection Division; (b) of the adjudicators in (a), how many have postsecondary degrees, broken down by (i) office, (ii) type of degree; (c) of the adjudicators in (a), how many have previous tribunal experience; (d) of the adjudicators with prior tribunal experience, (i) what office do they work in, (ii) how many years of experience do they have, (iii) what year were they hired; (e) of the adjudicators in (a), how many have prior public service experience; (f) for each adjudicator with prior public service experience, (i) what office do they work in, (ii) how many years of experience do they have, (iii) what year were they hired; and (g) what was the essential qualification criteria required to be an adjudicator at the IRB in (i) 2011, (ii) 2012, (iii) 2015, (iv) 2020, (v) August 2021, (vi) November 2021, (vii) 2023?
(Return tabled)
Question No. 2671—Mr. Alain Therrien:
With regard to the arrangements and travel costs for all government press briefings and pre-budget announcements in the lead-up to the tabling of the federal budget and to highlight the measures to be contained in the budget: what were the expenses and costs incurred from March 4, 2024, to April 16, 2024, the day of the budget speech, broken down by type of announcement, by date, by location and by the ministers, parliamentary secretaries and political staff present?
(Return tabled)
Question No. 2673—Mrs. Cathay Wagantall:
With regard to the COVID-19 Therapeutics Task Force (TTF) who oversaw submissions for grant funding from Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada (ISED)’s Strategic Innovation Fund: (a) in total, how many projects were considered for funding; (b) with respect to the projects which were funded, (i) how many received funding, (ii) how much funding was allocated per project, (iii) which drugs were being investigated per each approved project, (iv) what was the total amount of funding granted for the approved projects; (c) with regard to the projects which were not approved for funding, what recommendations were made to them; (d) with regard to the therapeutics which were recommended for purchase, (i) what were these therapeutics, (ii) were these therapeutics purchased, (iii) what was the implementation plan, (iv) if there was no plan, why not; (e) were the drugs Ivermectin or Hydroxychloroquine considered by the TFF; (f) if the answer to (e) is affirmative, what were their recommendations and how did they arrive at them; (g) who were the members of the TTF; (h) were any of the members pharmacists, pharmacologists, or toxicologists; (i) what were the members' conflicts of interest; (j) did any of the members withdraw from the task force prior to its conclusion; (k) if the answer to (j) is affirmative, who left early and why; (l) regarding the document entitled “HEALTH CANADA/ PUBLIC HEALTH AGENCY OF CANADA MEMORANDUM TO THE MINISTER OF HEALTH, Meeting with the COVID-19 Therapeutics Task Force” dated February 24, 2021, and signed by the President of the Public Health Agency of Canada and the Deputy Minister of Health, which reads that “At the previous meeting TTF members expressed concern that their mandate was ending. TTF members were specifically concerned about what they felt was insufficient attention to therapeutics, failures of implementation, and the need to be forward looking for surveillance of upcoming therapeutic opportunities. It is expected that TTF members will raise these concerns to you”, (i) what concerns were raised to the signee, (ii) what documents were provided with respect to expressing those concerns; and (m) when and why was the TTF mandate ended?
(Return tabled)
Question No. 2674—Ms. Heather McPherson:
With regard to federal housing investments in Edmonton, since February 1, 2006, broken down by year: (a) how much federal funding was provided to support the construction of nonprofit or community housing and how many units were developed; (b) how much federal funding was provided to support the construction of cooperative housing and how many units were developed; and (c) how much federal funding was provided to support the construction of purpose-built rental housing and how many units were developed?
(Return tabled)
Question No. 2676—Mr. Sameer Zuberi:
With regard to the Court Challenges Program: (a) how much money has been delivered through the program in each of the last five years; (b) who has received money through the program, and how much was received; and (c) if the government refuses to answer (b) citing solicitor-client privilege, what is the government's rationale given that it is neither the solicitor nor the client in many of the related court cases?
(Return tabled)
Question No. 2677—Mr. Sameer Zuberi:
With regard to federal infrastructure funding, since January 1, 2016, broken down by year: (a) how much money has been distributed for infrastructure projects under the (i) Rural Transit Solutions Fund, (ii) Zero Emission Transit Fund, (iii) Active Transportation Fund, (iv) Green and Inclusive Community Buildings Program, (v) Natural Infrastructure Fund, (vi) Canada Healthy Communities Initiative; (b) what are the details of all projects in (a), including, for each, (i) the project description, (ii) the date of the funding announcement, (iii) the amount of funding originally announced, (iv) the amount of funding distributed to date, (v) the date the funding was transferred to the recipient, (vi) the recipient of the funding, (vii) the current status of the project, (viii) the project location, (ix) whether the location of the project is a Census Metropolitan Area or Census Agglomeration, (x) the original projected completion date for the project, (xi) the actual completion date for the project, if applicable, (xii) the current projected completion date for the project, (xiii) the reason for the project delay, if applicable; and (c) what are the details of any infrastructure funding which was announced, but for which the related project was later cancelled, including, for each, the (i) project name and description, (ii) project location, (iii) amount of funding originally announced, (iv) amount of funding transferred to the recipient, (v) date of the cancellation, (vi) reason for the cancellation?
(Return tabled)
Question No. 2678—Mrs. Tracy Gray:
With regard to the Disability Tax Credit (DTC), broken down by fiscal year from 2015-16 to 2023-24: (a) what is the total number of people that applied to claim the DTC, broken down by basic activities of daily living (BADL); (b) what is the total number and percentage of approved DTC claims, broken down by BADL; (c) what is value of DTC claims broken down by BADL; (d) what is the number and percentage of new applications processed and accepted, broken down by BADL, and how many of those approved (i) had eligibility for the DTC for five years or more, (ii) expired after a certain number of years; (e) what is the number and percentage of new applications processed and rejected, broken down by BADL; (f) what was, or is, the total budget for all OTC-related operations; (g) what was, or is, the total employee count for all OTC-related operations, and what is the number of medical practitioners working on the DTC; (h) how many days, on average, did the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) take to assign a DTC application for review from the time of filing by the applicant; (i) how many days, on average, did the CRA take to mail (electronic or otherwise) a notice of determination related to a DTC application; (j) how many letters or correspondences did CRA send to the relevant medical practitioners asking for more information related to DTC applications received; (k) how many DTC applicants that were rejected or denied (i) requested a review of their application, (ii) challenged the CRA's decision by filing an income tax objection, (iii) moved beyond the CRA to an appeal filed to the Tax Court of Canada; (I) how long does the CRA take to review an application as noted in (k), (i) how many of those reviews resulted in an application being accepted; and (m) does the CRA have a dedicated telephone or TTY line for DTC applications, and (i) if so, how many calls has it received, (ii) if not, why not?
(Return tabled)
Question No. 2679—Mr. Scot Davidson:
With regard to the Select Luxury Items Tax (luxury tax) that came into effect on September 1, 2022: (a) what is the number of (i) aircrafts, (ii) vehicles, (iii) vessels, that were reported under the luxury tax, broken down by province and territory; (b) how many applications, registrations, forms, returns, and other documentation does the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) have associated with the luxury tax, including those seeking exemptions, for taxpayers, including the full title of each piece of documentation; (c) what has been the total cost to the CRA to implement and administer the luxury tax to date; (d) what are the total amounts submitted to the CRA by taxpayers to date under (i) Part D, (ii) Part E, (iii) Part F, of Form B500; and (e) what are the total amounts submitted to the CRA by taxpayers to date under (i) Part D, (ii) Part E, (iii) Part F, of Form B501?
(Return tabled)
Question No. 2680—Mr. Clifford Small:
With regard to the Climate Action Incentive Fund (CAIF), broken down by province and year: how much money was returned through the CAIF’s Municipalities, Universities, Schools and Hospitals Retrofit stream, broken down by (i) municipality, (ii) university, (iii) school, (iv) hospital?
(Return tabled)
Question No. 2681—Mr. Clifford Small:
With regard to federal infrastructure funding under the Investing in Canada Plan, since January 1, 2016, broken down by year: (a) how much money has been announced for projects located in (i) Census Metropolitan Areas (CMAs), (ii) Census Agglomerations (CAs), (iii) areas outside of CMAs or CAs; (b) how much money has been distributed for projects located in (i) CMAs, (ii) CAs, (iii) areas outside of CMAs or CAs; (c) what are the details of each project in (a) and (b), including the (i) name of the CMA the project is located in, if applicable, (ii) name of the CA the project is located in, if applicable, (iii) name of the region the project is located in, if applicable, (iv) project description, (v) amount of funding originally announced, (vi) amount of funding distributed to date, (vii) date the funding was transferred to the recipient, (viii) recipient of the funding, (ix) current status of the project, (x) original projected completion date for the project, (xi) actual completion date for the project, if applicable, (xii) current projected completion date for the project, (xiii) reason for the project delay, if applicable; and (d) of the funding announced for projects in (a), were any projects later cancelled, and, if so, what are the details of each, including the (i) name of the CMA the project is located in, if applicable, (ii) name of the CA the project is located in, if applicable, (iii) name of the region the project is located in, if applicable, (iv) project description, (v) amount of funding originally announced, (vi) amount of funding transferred to the recipient, (vii) date of the cancellation, (viii) reason for the cancellation?
(Return tabled)
Question No. 2682—Mr. Kyle Seeback:
With regard to the M-KOPA project that received financing through the Development Finance Institute Canada (FinDev Canada), a Canadian Crown corporation that is a subsidiary of Export Development Canada (EDC): (a) what assessments has EDC made to ensure that M-KOPA is properly accounting for all expenditures of taxpayer funds provided by the Government of Canada; (b) has the government reviewed and analyzed any of the expenditures by M-KOPA through FinDev Canada and EDC, and, if so, what are the details of all written, electronic and other documents pertaining to M-KOPA and funds provided to this organization; (c) has any auditing been done of M-KOPA or of FinDev Canada in relation to M-KOPA, and, if so, what were the findings; (d) what was the timeline for the approval of investments made by the Government of Canada, through EDC to FinDev Canada then to M-KOPA; and (e) what are the details of all memorandums and briefing notes about M-KOPA, all financial and contractual details including all memorandums and briefing notes and scope documents and economic impact analysis as well as all other financial documents related to M-KOPA that were sent or received by EDC, FinDev Canada, or any relevant ministerial offices and ministers, deputy ministers, assistant deputy ministers, the Minister of Finance, the Prime Minister and the Office of the Prime Minister, the Privy Council Office, and any other outstanding documentation that discusses the provision of funding or potential funding and screening of M-KOPA from 2016 to 2024?
(Return tabled)
Question No. 2684—Mr. Pat Kelly:
With regard to the Canada Revenue Agency and write-offs of accounts receivable, broken down by fiscal year from 2015-16 to 2023-24: (a) what was the total amount of write-offs; (b) how many (i) individual taxpayers, (ii) corporations, had amounts written-off; (c) what was the average amount written-off for (i) individual taxpayers, (ii) corporations; (d) what was the dollar amount of the single largest write-off, broken down by the (i) Financial Administration Act, (ii) Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, (iii) Income Tax Act, (iv) Excise Tax Act; and (e) what was the dollar amount of the single largest write-off for (i) an individual taxpayer, (ii) a corporation?
(Return tabled)
Question No. 2688—Ms. Niki Ashton:
With regard to the Universal Broadband fund, broken down by year and province or territory: how much money did the fund disperse and how much money went to (i) Rogers, (ii) BCE, (iii) Telus, or its subsidiaries?
(Return tabled)
Question No. 2689—Ms. Niki Ashton:
With regard to the electoral district of Churchill—Keewatinook Aski, broken down by fiscal year since 2005-06: what are the details of all federal infrastructure investments, including direct transfers to municipalities, regional district associations or First Nations, national parks, highways, etc.?
(Return tabled)
Question No. 2693—Ms. Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné:
With regard to the government response to Order Paper Question Q-2422 regarding the awarding of non-competitive contracts, for Export Development Canada and for Public Services and Procurement Canada, broken down by year, from 2016 to the present: for each contract, what is the (i) recipient’s total amount of the contract, (ii) reason, if any, for awarding the contract, (iii) name of the organization that received the contract?
(Return tabled)
Question No. 2694—Mr. Luc Berthold:
With regard to spending on consultants by the government, broken down by year since 2018, and by department or agency: what was the total spending on external consultants (professional and special services) that are not an employee of a Crown corporation, agent of the Crown, or another department of the Government of Canada?
(Return tabled)
Question No. 2695—Ms. Niki Ashton:
With regard to individuals who were made to repay or whose COVID-era benefits such as the Canada Emergency Response Benefit, the Canada Emergency Student Benefit, the Canada Recovery Benefit, the Canada Recovery Caregiving Benefit, the Canada Recovery Sickness Benefit or the Canada Worker Lockdown Benefit were clawed back by the Canada Revenue Agency: (a) how many of these individuals, broken down by province and territory, and by income level, were (i) the only parent of a one-parent family, (ii) Indigenous, broken down by First Nations people, status and non-status, Metis and Inuit, (iii) people living below the poverty line, (iv) people on disability, (v) individuals aged 65 or older; (b) how much money was repaid or clawed back, broken down by individuals who were (i) the only parent of a one-parent family, (ii) Indigenous, broken down by First Nations people, status and non-status, Metis and Inuit, (iii) people living below the poverty line, (iv) people on disability, (v) aged 65 or older; and (c) what is the total number of Canadians and the total amount which was repaid or clawed back?
(Return tabled)
Question No. 2696—Ms. Christine Normandin:
With regard to the government’s military spending since 2015: what are the annual amounts of investments and purchases of goods and services, broken down by province and territory?
(Return tabled)
Question No. 2698—Mr. Alexandre Boulerice:
With regard to federal funding and loans to Canada’s grocery sector, since January 1, 2006: how much federal funding has been provided to Loblaw Companies Limited and its subsidiaries, (i) No Frills, (ii) Real Canadian Superstore, (iii) Shoppers Drug Mart, (iv) Pharmaprix, (v) Provigo, (vi) Atlantic Superstore, (vii) Independent, (viii) T&T, broken down by company, year and type of funding?
(Return tabled)
Question No. 2699—Ms. Michelle Rempel Garner:
With regard to the introduction of the new icon launched on May 3, 2024, by the Canadian Army: (a) when did the planning of this new icon begin; (b) how long did it take to design this icon; (c) what are the details of all contracts related to the design of the icon, including (i) what outside contractors were involved, (ii) how much each contractor was paid, (iii) whether any related contracts were sole sourced, and, if so, which ones, (iv) how long the contractor took to complete this work, (v) when this work was completed; (d) how much did it cost overall to design this icon; (e) how many staff, if any, were involved in the design of this icon; (f) which members of the Department of National Defence were involved in the approval of this icon; (g) who gave the final approval to utilize this icon; (h) what costs, if any, were associated with the promotion of this icon once the work was completed, in total and broken down by type of cost; (i) what are the costs (i) incurred to date, (ii) projected to be incurred, to initiate the use of the new icon, including, but not limited to, the placement on advertisements, uniforms, stationary, broken down by category; (j) who approved the (i) communications plan, (ii) tweets, related to the release of the new icon; (k) what are the details of all contracts related to communicating the launch of this icon, including (i) what outside contractors were involved, (ii) how much each of these contractors were paid, (iii) whether any related contracts were sole-sourced, and, if so, which ones, (iv) how long it took them to complete this work, (v) when this work was completed; (l) what are the details of all contracts signed related to the promotion of this icon, including (i) what outside contractors were involved, (ii) how much each of these contractors has been, or will be paid, (iii) whether any related contracts were sole-sourced, and, if so, which ones, (iv) how long it took them to complete this work, (v) when this work was completed, (vi) whether any advertising was purchased, and, if so, how much and on which platforms; (m) what are the details of all contracts related to the surveys, focus testing, public opinion testing, or any other research about the new icon, including (i) what outside contractors were involved, (ii) how much each of these contractors were paid, (iii) whether any related contracts were sole-sourced, and, if so, which ones, (iv) how long it took them to complete this work, (v) when this work was completed; (n) how many staff, if any, were involved in the surveys, focus testing, public opinion testing, or any other research about the new icon; and (o) for each focus group or public opinion research that was conducted, (i) what questions were asked, (ii) what topics were analyzed, (iii) what were the results?
(Return tabled)
[English]
:
Mr. Speaker, I would ask that all remaining questions be allowed to stand at this time, please.
The Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.