Questions and responses 45th Parliament, 1st session May 26, 2025, to present

With regard to communications sponsored by the government during the COVID-19 pandemic: (a) which individual or agency developed the “Pregnancy, childbirth and caring for a newborn during the COVID-19 pandemic” communication, which was first published on July 13, 2021, and last updated on October 25, 2023; (b) who provided the final approval of the communication in (a) and when; (c) which individual or agency developed the narrative for the video titled, “Are there any ingredients in the COVID-19 vaccines that I should be concerned about”, narrated by Dr. Ayesha Raza; (d) who provided the final approval of the communication in (c) and when; (e) which individual or agency developed the narrative for the video titled, “Can the COVID-19 vaccines affect fertility”, narrated by Dr. Darine El-Chaâr; (f) who provided the final approval of the communication in (e) and when; (g) on December 23, 2021, which individual or agency developed the advice to Canadians about the interchangeability of vaccines found on the government's website, titled, “COVID-19 vaccine: Canadian Immunization Guide, For health professionals, Notice”; and (h) who provided the final approval of the communication in (g) and when?

With regard to Health Canada and Public Health Agency of Canada messaging about the safety of COVID-19 vaccines during pregnancy and lactation and website messaging that reads, “Vaccination is an important part of a healthy pregnancy, with health benefits for both the pregnant person and their baby. Several vaccines are routinely recommended during pregnancy, including COVID-19 vaccines [...] Evidence suggests that COVID-19 vaccination during pregnancy helps to prevent: COVID-19 infection and the risk of hospitalization from COVID-19 in infants under 6 months of age” and the government response to Order Paper Question Q-2163 from the 44th Parliament, which reads, “As indicated in the specific Product Monographs, it is noted that the safety and efficacy of these vaccines in pregnant women have not yet been established. No indication for use in pregnant or lactating women was sought by the vaccine sponsors or authorized by Health Canada [...] Health Canada has not approved any safety claims with regard to pregnant and lactating women”: (a) how does Health Canada and the Public Health Agency of Canada explain these two conflicting statements; (b) who wrote the statement on the government's website and who approved it; and (c) who wrote the statement in the response to Q-2163 and who approved it?

With regard to all payments made since May 5, 2023, from COVID-19 income support programs for workers, including the Canada Emergency Response Benefit, the Canada Recovery Benefit, the Canada Recovery Caregiving Benefit, the Canada Recovery Sickness Benefit and the Canada Worker Lockdown Benefit: (a) what is the total amount paid to Canadians under each program; (b) how many individuals have received payments under each program; (c) what was the average amount paid per recipient under each program; (d) what is the total amount of overpayments identified, under each program, and how much has been recovered to date; and (e) how many cases of suspected or confirmed fraud related to these programs have been investigated or referred to law enforcement, including the total dollar value associated with each such case?

With regard to Health Canada’s review of the COVID-19 modRNA vaccine products: (a) did Health Canada consider the specific nature of the nanotechnology of the lipid particles used for the modRNA vaccine delivery; (b) if the answer to (a) is affirmative, what was their assessment; (c) why was the fact that modRNA vaccines contain nanotechnology omitted from the product monograph-label; (d) did Health Canada assess the toxicity of pegylated nanoparticles, specifically the risk for complement activation-related pseudoallergy (CARPA) with the lipid nanoparticles used in the mRNA vaccines; (e) if the answer to (d) is affirmative, why was this not included in the product labelling; (f) if the answer to (d) is negative, why wasn’t this assessed; (g) did Health Canada assess the risk of toxicity due to the nanoformat of these vaccines; (h) if the answer to (g) is affirmative, what was the assessment result; (i) if the answer to (g) is negative, why not; (j) did Health Canada assess the lipid nanoparticles as a novel excipient; (k) if the answer to (j) is affirmative, what was the assessment; (l) if the answer to (j) is negative, why not; (m) with respect to nanotechnology products and their unique properties and behaviours, particularly in their application to the modRNA vaccines, did Health Canada examine (i) the safety, (ii) the effectiveness, (iii) the risk to the environment, (iv) its specific regulatory status; (n) if the answers to (m)(i) through (m)(iv) are affirmative, what were the assessment results; (o) if the answers to (m)(i) through (m)(iv) are negative, why not; (p) how do established safe levels of DNA apply (i) when using pegylated lipid nanoparticles as a delivery system, (ii) when a product that contains pegylated lipid nanoparticles requires repeated dosing; and (q) what assessment was performed to assess the risk of residual DNA when using pegylated lipid nanoparticles as a delivery system in a vaccine which requires repeated dosing?

With regard to the Public Health Agency of Canada’s “Cases Following Vaccination” reports published from August 2021 to September 2022: (a) why did the Public Health Agency of Canada decide to begin calculating and comparing COVID-19 deaths using vaccination status, on the date of COVID-19 vaccine approval in December 2020, rather than the date on which each corresponding dose level actually began to be administered, or using weekly death counts, as is done for Statistics Canada’s Deaths by Age and Deaths by cause statistics; (b) what internal documentation, analyses, and external scientific or technical references were consulted to inform the methodological choice described in (a); (c) within the Public Health Agency of Canada, which organizational units and officials or governing authorities (i) proposed the methodology described in (a), (ii) reviewed it (including any internal methodological or ethics review), (iii) formally approved it for use in the “Cases Following Vaccination” reports; (d) in what way does the methodology described in (a) permit the observation and analysis of time-based (for example, weekly or seasonal) variations in COVID-19 deaths by vaccination status in relation to contemporaneous factors, including, but not limited to, seasonal changes and the dates on which additional vaccine doses (for example, second, third, or booster doses) began to be administered; and (e) in developing and approving this methodology, did the Public Health Agency of Canada rely on, or explicitly reference, any guidance, standards, or methodologies issued by the World Health Organization or any other international public health body, and, if so, which specific documents or authorities were relied upon?

With regard to COVID-19 vaccine procurement by the government: (a) how many COVID-19 vaccines has Canada (i) procured, (ii) had delivered, since the pandemic was declared over on May 5, 2023, in total and broken down by supplier; (b) how many vaccines have been ordered but not yet delivered, in total and broken down by supplier; (c) how much money has been spent on procuring the vaccines (i) procured, (ii) delivered, since May 5, 2023, in total and broken down by supplier; and (d) what is the government's estimate on how much it will spend on future purchases of COVID-19 vaccines, in total and broken down by supplier and year, if known?

With regard to the Action Committee on Court Operations in Response to COVID-19 (the “Action Committee”) co-chaired by Chief Justice Richard Wagner and former Minister of Justice and Attorney General David Lametti: (a) who were the originators of the idea for the Action Committee; (b) what were the terms of reference and mandate of this Action Committee; (c) given the Action Committee’s membership included high-level representatives from the executive branch of the federal government (Department of Justice Canada, Public Health Agency of Canada) and the judicial branch (Supreme Court of Canada, provincial courts), what measures were implemented to protect the separation of powers and judicial independence; (d) what measures were taken to prevent judges on the Action Committee and across Canada from being pressured to act as advocates for the federal government’s policies, as opposed to independent arbiters of fact and law; (e) given the Action Committee’s mandate centred on administrative procedures rather than judicial decision-making, why did its membership include judges, rather than just court administrators; (f) what influence, if any, did British Columbia’s Justice COVID-19 Response Group and Cross-Jurisdictional Technical Advisory Group have on the Action Committee’s formation, deliberations, and recommendations; (g) what metrics or criteria were the participating judges given in order to prevent bias on factual or legal issues surrounding COVID-19; (h) what were the procedures in place to identify and manage financial, personal or political conflicts of interest among the Action Committee’s members and direct participants; (i) what specific conflicts of interest were identified and with whom; (j) which law firms participated, either directly or indirectly, in the Action Committee; (k) did the Action Committee consider, discuss or address (i) the topics of “misinformation,” “disinformation” or “malinformation” related to court operations, judicial decision-making or any other context, (ii) the use of judicial notice in legal challenges related to COVID-19 or the pandemic response, (iii) the implementation of mandatory COVID-19 vaccination policies or restrictions for court users, staff or judges and any exemptions from such policies; (l) what actions were taken or processes put in place to ensure that legal cases related to COVID-19 were decided based on a review of all the evidence put before the presiding court, notwithstanding (i) any information or advice provided to the Action Committee by the executive branch (Department of Justice Canada, the Public Health Agency of Canada, Health Canada, the National Advisory Committee on Immunization, the Canadian Centre for Occupational Health and Safety), (ii) any information or guidance provided to the courts by the Action Committee; (m) were concerns raised at any time, either internally or externally, over any aspect of the Action Committee’s (i) creation, membership, processes, independence, politicization, bias, conflicts of interest, (ii) discussion or actions around issues of public health restrictions, mask and vaccine mandates and exemptions, or the taking of judicial notice in COVID-related cases, and, if so, what were the concerns; (n) what was the communication protocol of the Action Committee to provide direction or make recommendations to courts, regulatory bodies or associations; (o) what were those communications and their dates; (p) were cases delayed waiting for information from the Action Committee; (q) did the Action Committee recommend the restriction on access to judicial chambers based on COVID-19 vaccination status; (r) who or what entities received advice or recommendations from the Action Committee; and (s) did the Action Committee set forth any requirements or guidelines to Crown prosecutors for criminal prosecutions related to harms resulting from the government’s COVID-19 pandemic response, or for handling private prosecutions that may arise from harm, negligence or other allegations?

With regard to Health Canada, the Public Health Agency of Canada and the National Advisory Committee on Immunization and their statement, “the benefits of the COVID-19 vaccines outweigh the risks”: (a) what are the benefits of the COVID-19 vaccines, broken down by (i) benefit, (ii) supporting studies or documents and their published date, (iii) start and end dates of the benefit analysis, (iv) name and title of those who analyzed the benefit; (b) what are the risks of the COVID-19 vaccines, broken down by (i) risk, (ii) supporting studies or documents and their published dates, (iii) date on which the risk was identified, (iv) start and end dates of the risk analysis, (v) name and title of those who analyzed the risk; (c) was a risk and benefit analysis performed for each COVID-19 vaccine product; (d) if the answer to (c) is affirmative, (i) what are the start and end dates of each analysis, (ii) what are the differences between the product analysis results; (e) was a separate risk and benefit analysis performed for (i) various age groups, (ii) genders, (iii) pregnant women, (iv) the immunocompromised, (v) First Nations and Indigenous populations; (f) if the answer to (e) is affirmative, for each group in (e), what are the (i) start and end dates for each analysis performed, (ii) name and title of those who performed them; (g) was a risk and benefit analysis performed for Canadians who were previously infected with COVID-19; and (h) if the answer to (g) is affirmative, for each analysis performed, what (i) was the start date, (ii) was the end date, (iii) were the conclusions of the analysis?

With regard to Health Canada, Public Health Agency of Canada and National Advisory Committee on Immunization expenditures between 2020 and 2023: (a) which projects and departments researched the safety of the COVID-19 vaccines and how much did each project cost, broken down by (i) project name, (ii) department name, (iii) start date, (iv) completion date, (v) cost; (b) which projects and departments researched manufacturers' COVID-19 vaccine applications and how much did each project cost, broken down by (i) vaccine name, (ii) project name, (iii) department name, (iv) start date, (v) completion date, (vi) cost; (c) which projects and departments informed Canadians and specialists about the adverse events associated with the COVID-19 vaccines, broken down by (i) project name, (ii) department name, (iii) adverse event, (iv) start date, (v) completion date, (vi) date Canadians were informed about the adverse event, (vii) cost; and (d) which projects and departments researched vaccine hesitancy and how much did each project cost, broken down by (i) project name, (ii) department name, (iii) start date, (iv) completion date, (v) cost?

With regard to the recommendations in Health Canada’s publication through the National Advisory Committee on Immunization titled, “Vaccination and pregnancy: COVID-19”: (a) how do these recommendations differ from the May 27, 2025, announcement by the United States of America’s Health and Human Services, stating the COVID-19 vaccine would no longer be included in the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s recommended immunization schedule for healthy pregnant women and healthy children (herein referred to as “cohort”) citing “mixed data” on booster safety and efficacy for pregnant women while seeking stricter clinical trials for vaccine approvals in healthy individuals under 65; (b) did communications occur, related to the Health and Human Services announcement, between Health Canada, the National Advisory Committee on Immunization or the Public Health Agency of Canada and (i) Health and Human Services, (ii) the United States of America’s Food and Drug Administration, (iii) the United States’Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, (iv) the United Kingdom’s Medicines & Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, (v) the European Medical Agency; (c) if the answer to (b) is affirmative, what (i) were the dates of the communications, (ii) were the modes of communications, (iii) were the names and titles of people included in the communications, (iv) was the outcome; (d) to Health Canada's knowledge, did the Medicines & Healthcare products Regulatory Agency or the European Medical Agency agree with Health Canada’s recommendations for the administration of the COVID-19 vaccine to this cohort; (e) does Health Canada, the National Advisory Committee on Immunization or the Public Health Agency of Canada have mixed data regarding booster safety and efficacy of the COVID-19 vaccine in this cohort, and, if so, how does this impact the risk-benefit analysis; (f) is Health Canada , the Public Health Agency of Canada or the National Advisory Committee on Immunization including the same or different data than the United States of America’s Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration, and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in the decision to continue recommending the COVID-19 vaccines for this cohort; (g) what clinical trials or data is Health Canada, the National Advisory Committee on Immunization and the Public Health Agency of Canada including in their decision that gives them confidence to continue recommending these vaccines that differs from the United States of America’s Health and Human Services, the Food and Drug Administration, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; (h) is Health Canada planning to request stricter clinical trials for vaccine approvals in healthy individuals under 65 in the future, and, if not, why not; (i) if the answer to (h) is affirmative, what additional vaccine clinical trial requirements will be needed for approval; (j) are there plans to change the recommendations with respect to the COVID-19 vaccine in this cohort; and (k) if the answer to (j) is affirmative, when will these recommendations be announced, and what will they include?

With regard to Health Canada’s review of the manufacturing data, quality control and safety of lipid nanoparticles in the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines, including all versions of Moderna’s SpikeVax, Pfizer-BioNTech’s Comirnaty and the boosters, and Onpattro (Patisaran): (a) was the purity of the starting materials for the lipids, such as residual halogenated solvents and elements, including metals, assessed for mutagenic risk in accordance with established norms and guidelines, and, if so, what were the results, and, if not, why not; (b) was the total amount of observed impurities assessed for mutagenic risk, and, if so, what were the results, and, if not, why not; (c) were any individual element impurities considered mutagenic; (d) if the answer to (c) is affirmative, was this assessed with respect to multiple doses and with respect to the nature of transfection of the lipid nanoparticles; (e) was any assessment of the lipid nanoparticle as a nanoparticle performed; (f) if the answer to (e) is affirmative, did this include an assessment of the polyethylene glycol moiety; (g) was an assessment of the risk of complement activation-related pseudoallergy due to the polyethylene glycol moiety performed, and, if so, what were the results, and, if not, why not; and (h) were any complement-related assays requested from the manufacturer, and, if not, why not?

With regard to Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada and Indigenous Services Canada: (a) what investigations were undertaken before making the determination that First Nations and Indigenous peoples were designated a priority group to receive the COVID-19 vaccines; (b) who made the recommendation in (a), and who approved the determination; (c) has the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations or the Minister of Indigenous Services received any correspondence in the last five years from any First Nations or Indigenous tribunals, either Canadian or international, about the COVID-19 vaccines; (d) if the answer to (c) is affirmative, what was the content of the correspondence and what actions took place; (e) were investigations undertaken by Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada or by the Government of Canada to investigate the rates of adverse events, including fatalities, in the First Nations and Indigenous populations following the administration of the COVID-19 vaccine; (f) what information or conclusions were made from the investigations in (e); (g) what action did the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations or the Minister of Indigenous Services take to protect First Nations and Indigenous populations once it was discovered that the mRNA injections were contaminated with excess deoxyribonucleic acid combined with an SV40 nuclear targeting agent; (h) did Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada receive any funding to promote the COVID-19 vaccines to the First Nations and Indigenous population, and, if so, how much and from what source; (i) did any or all bands receive funding specifically in relation to the COVID-19 vaccine; (j) if the answer to (i) is affirmative, how much funding was received by each band, was the funding contingent on specific compliance regarding the COVID-19 vaccine or its promotion, and, if so, what were those conditions; (k) if the answer to (i) is affirmative, who or what agency provided the funding, and was any funding directed towards (i) preventing vaccine hesitancy, (ii) promoting awareness of adverse reactions, (iii) other, and how much was allocated for (i), (ii) and (iii); (l) in relation to the Vaccine Injury Support Program, (i) how many First Nations and Indigenous persons have applied to the Vaccine Injury Support Program, (ii) how many applications have been accepted, (iii) how many fatalities have been recorded in this population, (iv) how much money in total has been awarded through this program to First Nations and Indigenous persons; (m) if the answer to (l) is negative, is there another application process or vaccine injury support program specifically for First Nations and Indigenous persons who have suffered a vaccine injury or fatality; and (n) if the answer to (m) is affirmative, (i) what is the name of the program, (ii) how many First Nations and Indigenous persons have applied to this program, (iii) how many applications have been accepted, (iv) how many fatalities have been recorded in this population, (v) how much money in total has been awarded through this program?

With regard to the Canada Border Services Agency, Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada, and the COVID-19 pandemic: (a) how many migrant workers entered Canada between (i) April 1, 2020, and October 31, 2020, (ii) April 1, 2021, and October 31, 2021, (iii) April 1, 2022, and October 31, 2022, broken down by province; (b) what are the details of the quarantine period, including (i) how many migrant workers were quarantined, by province, (ii) when they were quarantined, by month and year, (iii) the length of the quarantine period, (iv) who paid for their quarantine accommodations, (v) the overall cost to the government; (c) how many migrant workers received their COVID-19 vaccine in Canada, upon their arrival in Canada between (i) April 1, 2020, and October 31, 2020, (ii) April 1, 2021, and October 31, 2021, (iii) April 1, 2022, and October 31, 2022, broken down by province; (d) in cases where the migrant worker was already COVID-19 vaccinated in his or her country of origin, did Canadian immigration authorities document the date of vaccination and the vaccine brand for migrant workers, and what is the data; (e) in cases where the migrant worker received an unapproved COVID-19 vaccine brand prior to entry, would they require receipt of a Canadian approved brand upon entry; (f) following COVID-19 immunization, how many migrant workers (i) sought medical attention, (ii) were determined too ill to work, (iii) were hospitalized, (iv) died while in Canada; (g) for each case in (f)(i) to (f)(iv), how many occurrences were there between (i) April 1, 2020, and October 31, 2020, (ii) April 1, 2021, and October 31, 2021, (iii) April 1, 2022, and October 31, 2022, broken down by province; (h) in cases where a migrant worker died following immunization, what were the causes of death; (i) with regard to persons in (h), were any autopsies performed on any deceased migrant workers; (j) if the answer to (i) is affirmative, how many autopsies were performed and what were the findings; (k) how many deceased bodies or their cremated remains were sent back to their country of origin between (i) April 1, 2020, and October 31, 2020, (ii) April 1, 2021, and October 31, 2021, (iii) April 1, 2022, and October 31, 2022; and (l) in cases where a migrant worker had an adverse event following their COVID-19 vaccination in Canada, would they qualify for Canada's Vaccine Injury Support Program?

With regard to Health Canada, the Public Health Agency of Canada and reports of myocarditis and pericarditis following COVID-19 vaccination: (a) what is the standard operating procedure when an Adverse Event Following Immunization report containing a potential safety signal is received or identified; (b) what federal teams, working groups, contract companies and persons were responsible for requesting, receiving, reviewing and monitoring any Adverse Event Following Immunization reports with respect to myocarditis and pericarditis following the COVID-19 vaccines from (i) international sources, (ii) the provinces and territories; (c) after the information in (b) was received, what steps or actions were taken next, by whom, and on what date; (d) was the Public Health Agency of Canada or Health Canada notified of Adverse Event Following Immunization reports for myocarditis and pericarditis following COVID-19 vaccination, and, if so, for each notification, what was the (i) name of the notifier, (ii) title of the notifier, (iii) form of notification, (iv) name of the person who was notified, (v) date of the notification; (e) did the Public Health Agency of Canada or Health Canada receive the initial reports of myocarditis and pericarditis following COVID-19 vaccination from the Israeli Ministry of Health in February 2021, and, if so, (i) who received the notification, (ii) what was the date of the notification, (iii) what actions were taken after the notification, (iv) who authorized these actions, including their name, their title and the date of authorization; (f) for each communication between the Public Health Agency of Canada, Health Canada and all Public Health Agency of Canada or Health Canada COVID-19 task forces or working groups related to the Israeli Ministry of Health myocarditis and pericarditis safety signal notification, what was the (i) date, (ii) subject, (iii) type and content, of the communication; and (g) what communication related to the myocarditis and pericarditis safety signal occurred between the Public Health Agency of Canada, Health Canada or the Public Health Agency of Canada or Health Canada COVID-19 task forces and the COVID-19 vaccine manufacturer, including the (i) date, (ii) subject, (iii) type and content, of the communication?

With regard to COVID-19 vaccine mandates for public service employees, contractors and temporary workers: (a) how many employees and temporary workers were terminated because they didn't have the COVID-19 vaccine, broken down by (i) department, (ii) role, (iii) employment type (full-time, temporary, contractor); (b) how many employees and temporary workers had their pay suspended because they didn't have the COVID-19 vaccine, broken down by (i) department, (ii) role, (iii) employment type (full-time, temporary, contractor); (c) were grievances filed against the government for the COVID-19 vaccine employment mandates; (d) if the answer to (c) is affirmative, for each grievance, (i) what is the department, (ii) what is the role, (iii) what is the grievance, (iv) what is the state of the grievance, (v) what is the amount of money paid to the employee, (vi) did the government apologize for their actions; (e) did the government receive religious exemption requests for the COVID-19 employment vaccine mandate; and (f) if the answer to (e) is affirmative, how many religious exemption requests were received, broken down by (i) department, (ii) result of the request, (iii) who reviewed the exemption request?

With regard to information arising from an access to information request from the Public Health Agency of Canada – A-2023-000165, which stated that the Chief Public Health Officer Dr. Theresa Tam and “quite a few” pandemic managers at the Department of Health, the Public Health Agency of Canada, the Department of Industry, the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development and the Department of National Defence were required to sign a secret oath promising never to divulge information that “may result in embarrassment”: (a) which specific individual or individuals initiated the requirement for staff to sign a confidentiality agreement; (b) which divisions of which departments did the individual or individuals in (a) work in; (c) who was asked to sign this confidentiality agreement and what positions did they hold in their respective departments; (d) which divisions of which departments did the individuals in (c) work in; (e) what were the details of the confidentiality agreement; (f) why did the government feel such a confidentiality agreement was necessary; (g) did the government conceal or attempt to conceal any information from the public and media that could result in embarrassment; (h) if the answer to (g) is affirmative, what was the specific information that the government concealed or attempted to conceal from the public and media that could result in embarrassment; (i) what specific criteria do Department of Health officials use to determine whether it's more important to not embarrass the government versus the requirement to be open and transparent with Canadians; (j) are the staff who signed this confidentiality agreement still under a legal obligation to meet the demands as outlined in the confidentiality agreement; (k) under what other circumstances are these types of confidentiality agreements required of bureaucratic staff; (l) how did this confidentiality agreement differ from the Values and Ethics Code for the Public Sector; (m) who specifically wrote the confidentiality agreement and which division and which department do they work in; and (n) who approved the requirements of the confidentiality agreement?

With regard to Health Canada, the Public Health Agency of Canada, Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada, reports of myocarditis and pericarditis following COVID-19 vaccination and the March 3, 2021, International Regulatory Meeting for Pharmacovigilance Cluster on myocarditis following COVID-19 vaccination, at which Canada was represented: (a) what data were provided at this meeting in relation to myocarditis and pericarditis reports; (b) who attended this meeting on behalf of Canada; (c) what was the conclusion of the cluster meeting and did Health Canada agree with this conclusion; (d) whether the answer to (c) is affirmative or negative, what was Health Canada's rationale; (e) following this meeting, (i) what was Health Canada's action plan, (ii) was there a plan to investigate this signal further by Health Canada or any other regulatory body, and, if so, when, by whom and what was the plan; (f) were there meetings between Health Canada and other international regulatory agencies and the Marketing Authorization Holder, and, if so, what terms and conditions were placed upon the vaccine companies by Health Canada in relation to the reports of myocarditis and pericarditis; (g) what actions were taken by Health Canada or the Public Health Agency of Canada to identify cases of myocarditis or pericarditis following COVID-19 immunization in Canada with respect to (i) diagnostic parameters, (ii) research, (iii) reporting from health care providers, (iv) provincial guidance; and (h) for communications regarding the risk of myocarditis and pericarditis following COVID-19 vaccination for the public, (i) what input from non-government organizations and institutions was considered for public and media communications and messaging, (ii) what were the dates of the communication, (iii) what strategies and media scripts were developed, (iv) where are these communications posted or archived, (v) how and when was guidance to health care professionals updated to ensure informed consent with respect to myocarditis and pericarditis following COVID-19 vaccination?

With regard to the Public Order Emergency Commission: (a) what are the commission’s total expenditures to date; (b) what is the breakdown of the expenditures incurred by the commission, by type of expense (lawyers, witness travel, staff salaries, etc.); and (c) what are the total expenditures to date of each government department or agency related to the commission, including but not limited to those who participate in or monitor the commission’s proceedings, in total and broken down by type of expenditure?

With regard to COVID-19 mRNA vaccine safety and efficacy: (a) has Health Canada reviewed the peer-reviewed, published scientific article by Hulscher N, Alexander P E., Amerling R, Gessling H, Hodkinson R, Makis W et al. titled “A Systematic Review Of Autopsy Findings In Deaths After COVID-19 Vaccination”, Science, Public Health Policy and the Law. 2024 Nov 17; v5.2019-2024; (b) what is Health Canada’s assessment of the study referred to in (a); (c) which department or agency makes the final determination about causality when a family member makes a vaccine injury death claim through the Vaccine Injury Support Program; (d) how many death claims relating to the COVID-19 vaccines have been made to the Vaccine Injury Support Program to date; (e) how many death claims relating to the COVID-19 vaccines have been accepted as being causally related; (f) how many death claims relating to the COVID-19 vaccines have been paid through the Vaccine Injury Support Program and what is that total amount paid out; (g) is an autopsy required in the case of a vaccine injury death claim; (h) if the answer to (f) is affirmative, what specialized immunohistochemistry is required to prove causation in the event of an mRNA vaccine injury death; (i) has Health Canada considered mandating autopsies with appropriate immunohistochemistry staining for sudden deaths; and (j) for the years 2019 to 2024, what is the excess all-cause mortality, broken down by year and reason for mortality?

With regard to costs associated with the legal proceedings and investigations resulting from the Freedom Convoy protests in Ottawa in January and February 2022 and the associated declaration of a public order emergency: (a) what are the total legal costs incurred to date; (b) what is the breakdown of the costs by year in which they were incurred; and (c) what is the breakdown of the costs by (i) type of expenditure (lawyers, investigators, prosecutors, etc.), (ii) type of proceedings associated with the expense (Public Order Emergency Commission, criminal prosecution, civil proceedings, etc.)?