Questions and responses 44th Parliament, 1st session November 22, 2021, to January 6, 2025

With regard to the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC), since November 4, 2015: what are the details of all studies, completed or ongoing, which were conducted by or on behalf of CMHC, related to taxes on primary residences, including, for each, (i) the amount spent, (ii) who conducted the study, (iii) the start and end dates, (iv) the findings, (v) the website address where details are located, if applicable?

With regard to government programs focused on research, broken down by department, agency, or Crown corporation: (a) what are the names of all such programs; and (b) for each program in (a), (i) how much funding is allocated for the current fiscal year, (ii) how much funding is projected to be allocated in subsequent fiscal years, as far as current projections allow, (iii) what is the program’s purpose and objective, (iv) is it guided by a diversity, equity, and inclusion mandate?

With regard to funding for research at universities and associated organizations: (a) what is the amount of funding, in Canadian dollars, that is provided directly by the granting agencies and is used to fund research projects (i) in universities, (ii) in research organizations affiliated with universities, (iii) by researchers affiliated with a university, (iv) in total; and (b) what is the distribution of this amount between (i) U15 universities, (ii) small and medium-sized universities?

With regard to the United Nations Decade of Ocean Science, which began in 2021: (a) how is the government supporting research to better understand deep sea ecosystems; and (b) what programs has the government created or supported that aim to explore, map and understand the biodiversity of species associated with any seamounts, polymetallic nodules, and hydrothermal vents in Canadian waters?

With regard to stomach sampling of all species of seals conducted by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) in Atlantic Canada since 2017: what are the details of all sampling done by the DFO, including, for each sampling, the (i) species, (ii) gender, (iii) location, (iv) dates, (v) elapsed time between the harvest and sampling, (vi) findings?

With regard to funding for research at universities and associated organizations: (a) what amount of funding, in Canadian dollars, is provided directly by the various federal government departments; (b) what amount of funding, in Canadian dollars, does not come from the granting agencies, used to fund research projects (i) in universities, (ii) in research organizations affiliated with universities, (iii) by researchers affiliated with a university, (iv) in total; and (c) what is the distribution of this amount in (a) and (b) between (i) U15 universities, (ii) small and medium-sized universities?

With regard to Health Canada’s (HC) assessment of risks versus benefits for the COVID-19 vaccines: (a) did HC perform a formal analysis showing that the benefits of the COVID-19 vaccines outweigh the risks (i) at the time of interim order approval, (ii) at the time of authorization, under the amended Food and Drugs Regulation for September 2021, (iii) before the approval of each subsequent booster; (b) if the answer to (a) is affirmative, who performed the analysis and what were the results of the analysis, specifying the benefits and risks (i) at the time of interim order approval, (ii) at the time of authorization, under the amended Food and Drugs Regulation for September 2021, (iii) before the approval of each subsequent booster; (c) what specific scientific studies, real world data, and Canadian morbidity and mortality data were reviewed by HC to conclude the risks of the COVID-19 vaccines outweighed the risk of COVID-19 illness (i) at the time of interim order approval, (ii) at the time of authorization, under the amended Food and Drugs Regulation for September 2021, (iii) before the approval of each subsequent booster; (d) what were the risks that HC determined for the COVID-19 vaccines compared to the risks of the COVID-19 illness (i) stratified across age groups, (ii) for the immunocompromised, (iii) for seniors with two or more comorbidities, (iv) for pregnant and lactating women, and what were these results; (e) did HC use the Cleveland study entitled “Effectiveness of the Coronavirus Disease 2019 Bivalent Vaccine” by N. Shrestha et al to update their risk-benefit analysis of the current COVID-19 vaccine; (f) if the answer to (e) is negative, why not; (g) how were those individuals who received a COVID-19 vaccine classified as being “vaccinated” versus “unvaccinated” for the purposes of statistical analysis of clinical outcomes and vaccine efficacy by the following categories (i) less than two weeks after first dose of the primary series, (ii) between two weeks and three months after first dose of the primary series, (iii) less than two weeks after second dose of the primary series, (iv) more than two weeks after second dose of the primary series, (v) less than two weeks after any booster dose, (vi) more than six months after any booster dose; (h) would the response in (g) be influenced by brand of COVID-19 vaccine, and, if so, how; (i) for Canadian morbidity and mortality data presented to the Canadian public to illustrate the efficacy of the COVID-19 vaccines, how were the definitions from (g) and (h) used; and (j) what data supported the definitions of the vaccination status as defined in (g)?

With regard to government research related to home equity, since November 4, 2015 and broken down by department or agency: (a) what are the details of all contracts entered into by the government for research, polling, publications, projects, or any other activity related to the topic of home equity including, for each, the (i) date, (ii) amount or value, (iii) vendor, (iv) description of goods or services; and (b) what are the details of all polling or analysis the government has conducted related to home equity, including, for each (i) who conducted the polling or analysis, (ii) what specific questions were polled or analyzed, (iii) what were the findings?

With regard to research projects located outside of Canada that received government funding since January 1, 2020: (a) what are the details of all such projects, including, for each, the (i) recipient, (ii) date the funding was provided, (iii) amount of funding, (iv) country the research is taking place in, (v) project description, including the topics and the type of research, (vi) start and end dates of the research, (vii) country, (viii) municipality, (ix) program under which the funding was provided; and (b) for all the projects in (a) which are completed, what are the findings or the website location where the findings can be viewed?

With regard to the new capstone research funding organization announced in budget 2024: (a) how will the government decide who sits on the board of this organization; (b) when does the government plan to have the organization launched and active; (c) how many employees or full-time equivalents will be hired; (d) what are the estimated salaries, divided by position; (e) what will be the estimated annual cost of employees; (f) which, if any, international entities will be involved; and (g) what will be the breakdown of the funding allocated for Canadian research versus international research?

With regard to the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) and its funding of the study titled “Impact of population mixing between vaccinated and unvaccinated subpopulations on infectious disease dynamics: implications for SARS-CoV-2 transmission”: (a) to what funding opportunity stream, and what application criteria, did Fisman et al. submit their grant application and receive funding approval; (b) when CIHR conducted a peer review of this application prior to funding, (i) which researchers were assigned to conduct this review, (ii) what were their qualifications, (iii) what were their conclusions, (iv) what were their conflicts of interest; (c) how much funding did CIHR grant this study project; (d) were there any other funding agencies or entities supporting this study; (e) if the answer to (d) is affirmative, who were the other funding agencies or entities; (f) what was the expected timeline for study completion at the time of funding; (g) what conflicts of interest were listed for the grant applicants at the time of funding; (h) was there any federal government involvement with, or communication regarding, any component of the application review process, research study, or media outreach; (i) if the answer to (h) is affirmative, which government bodies were involved; (j) what are the details of the media communications once the study was completed, broken down by (i) subject, (ii) type of communication, (iii) who directed the communication, (iv) date of communication; (k) after the study was published, did CIHR receive any negative feedback; (l) if the answer to (k) is affirmative, (i) what was that feedback, (ii) how was it addressed; (m) what is CIHR’s average timeline from the day a grant application is received to when the grant is approved; and (n) what was the timeline from the day the grant application was received to when the funding approval decision was made for the above-captioned study?

With regard to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) and the Atlantic Seal Science Task Team: (a) how many meetings has the task team had since it was established in 2019; (b) what are the dates of each meeting; (c) what deliverables or accomplishments resulted from each meeting; (d) what specific input has been provided on the priorities of DFO's Atlantic seal science program; (e) what has resulted from the team's examining the application of technology advancements to seal research; (f) what measurable progress has been made on the objective of the team to increase the involvement of the fishing industry in seal science projects; and (g) what specific advice did the team provide on how DFO could better communicate its scientific findings to the fishing industry?

With regard to the government’s approach to information technology (IT): (a) what were the total expenditures on (i) research or IT database subscription services, (ii) benchmarking, (iii) value-assurance services for IT, in total, and broken down by department or agency and by each client department of Shared Services Canada; (b) which companies or stakeholders were consulted when Public Services and Procurement Canada made the decision to eliminate the National Master Standing Offers for Research (IT database subscription services) and Benchmarking for IT services that was previously in place for research and benchmarking services; (c) what are the details of the consultations in (b), including, for each, (i) the date, (ii) who was consulted, (iii) the feedback received; (d) what are the details of any outside consultants or service providers that have been involved in the development of a new contracting vehicle for these services, and what are the details of each, including the (i) name of the individual or firm, (ii) contract value, (iii) date of the contract, (iv) description of the goods or services provided; (e) how many government employees or full-time equivalents worked on the redesign and consultations; (f) what are the (i) travel, (ii) hospitality, costs associated with the redesign and consultations incurred to date, in total, and broken down by year and type of expense; (g) how many suppliers does the government use for research (IT database subscription services), benchmarking and value-assurance services relating to IT, and who are the suppliers; (h) how many of the suppliers in (g) include retired civil servants from the government; (i) what steps does the government take to ensure these service providers aren’t conflicted through partnerships, alliances, downstream implementation conflicts and other contractual arrangements; (j) how many and which departments and agencies use research (IT database subscription services), benchmarking and value-assurance services; and (k) for each department or agency in (j), what service providers are contracted to provide these services?

With regard to Policy Horizons Canada and the May 2024 report entitled “The Disruptions on the Horizon”: (a) which individuals or organizations, outside of the Government of Canada, contributed to the report; (b) were any of the individuals or organizations in (a) paid to participate, and, if so, how much was each paid; (c) what kind of format was used to gather opinions from individuals or organizations; (d) what specific questions were posed to the individuals or organizations in (a); (e) did Policy Horizons Canada attempt to gather the opinions of individuals or organizations outside of those that participated, and, if so, what are the details, including (i) their names, (ii) the reason provided to Policy Horizons Canada for why these individuals or organizations chose not to participate; (f) what was the total cost to research, prepare and publish the report; (g) has a lessons-learned exercise been conducted following the release of the report, and, if so, what were the results; and (h) is there a follow-up report anticipated and, if so, what are the details, including (i) the estimated date of release, (ii) the proposed budget, (iii) the focus of that report, (iv) whether the same individuals and organizations be consulted, (v) whether the lessons learned from the current report be incorporated into the upcoming report?

With regard to the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) and its College of Reviewers: (a) what specific conflict of interest prohibitions, if any, are placed on the reviewers; (b) what specific prohibitions, if any, are placed on the reviewers' current or past activities related to conducting work, (including any previous employment), by a firm or organization that applied for funding through the CIHR; (c) since 2016, broken down by year, how many reviewers have been removed from their position due to conflict of interest prohibitions; and (d) what are the details or summary of each instance in (c)?

With regard to the government’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic and its reliance on the National Advisory Committee on Immunization (NACI) for their “independent, expert advice” (source: Order Paper question Q-2554): (a) in 2020 and 2021, what specific studies demonstrated that the COVID-19 vaccines would prevent (i) all, (ii) any, transmission of SARS-CoV-2; (b) what specific studies demonstrated that the COVID-19 vaccines were ineffective or would not completely prevent transmission of SARS-CoV-2; (c) in 2020 and 2021, what specific data was provided by the manufacturers of the approved COVID-19 vaccines in Canada that demonstrated that the COVID-19 vaccines were effective in preventing transmission of SARS-CoV-2; (d) with respect to informed consent in 2021, how was the uncertainty or “unknown” evidence around “the effectiveness against virus transmission, and long-term effectiveness against infection and severe disease” communicated to the Canadian public and medical professionals administering the vaccines; (e) without certainty that the vaccine would prevent transmission, what was the rationale provided to the Office of the Prime Minister from the Public Health Agency of Canada, Health Canada or NACI in support of the following measures in relation to only unvaccinated healthy individuals presenting with no symptoms (i) PCR testing before entering the country, (ii) quarantining individuals before entering the country, (iii) showing one’s vaccine status through a vaccine passport, (iv) preventing their travelling on federally-regulated transportation; (f) who advised the Office of the Prime Minister about the uncertainty of the COVID-19 vaccines with respect to its inability to prevent transmission of SARS-CoV2 and when; (g) what was the source of the messaging used by (i) the Chief Public Health Officer, (ii) the Deputy Chief Public Health officer, (iii) the Chief Medical Officer of Health Canada, (iv) the Minister of Health, (v) the Prime Minister, (vi) other government or public health officials, to state that COVID-19 vaccination would protect others, implying it stopped viral transmission; and (h) who approved the messaging in (g)?

With regard to grants provided by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council, or the National Research Council Canada, broken down by year, since January 1, 2016: (a) what are the details of each grant awarded, including, for each (i) the date, (ii) the amount, (iii) the recipient, (iv) the project description, (v) the start and end date of the project, (vi) whether the grant was co-financed by a third party or commercial partner, and, if so, what is the financing arrangement; (vii) whether the project has resulted in patents, and, if so, who owns them?

With regard to Health Canada’s (HC) approval of the modRNA COVID-19 vaccines manufactured by Pfizer and Moderna and distributed throughout Canada, its mechanism of action and the elements of which they are comprised: (a) how many copies of the modRNA molecule are in a single dose, for both the Pfizer and Moderna products, (i) for adults, (ii) for children; (b) how many copies of the antigen are in a single adult dose of Novavax; (c) if there is a significant numerical difference between the answers for (a) and (b), does this affect the immunological response; (d) how many copies of dsDNA are found in a single 30 microliter adult dose of (i) Pfizer’s product, (ii) Moderna’s product; (e) was a request made to Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna regarding the DNA size distribution in the vaccine and, if so, (i) what proportion of the total DNA quantity were under 200bp, (ii) what was the average, range and standard deviation; (f) what is the function of the modRNA; (g) what is the function of the lipid nanoparticles (LNPs); (h) what is the specific role(s) of N1-methyl-pseudouridine as used in the modRNA of the vaccines; (i) what safety data was available to HC at the time of approval and is currently available, regarding any and repeat exposure to the following in human cells (i.e., safety, efficacy, toxicity): (i) large amounts of N1-methyl-pseudouridine, (ii) dsRNA, (iii) cytosolic DNA, (iv) lipid nanoparticles; (j) with regard to the research underpinning (g), has a risk assessment been performed of the LNPs separately from that of the drug product for safety, toxicity; (k) does HC have any degradation data for the modRNA in the vaccines and, if so, what does the data show; (l) what is the duration of action of modRNA from the COVID-19 mRNA in the body and how was that measured; (m) in what cells and organs is spike protein most likely to be produced in the body; (n) in which cell types and tissues does the modRNA remain for the longest period of time and second longest period of time, and what are the time periods; (o) for what period of time does a person injected with modRNA produce spike protein; (p) is the production of spike protein dependent on cell type; (q) is there a known correlation between the amount of modRNA in the vaccine and the amount of spike protein produced by the cells; (r) has HC performed a risk assessment on the immunological, toxicological and carcinogenicity of the spike protein and, if so, what was the analysis, and, if not, why weren't these risk assessments considered necessary; (s) if production of spike protein antigen is prolonged for greater than three to five days, does prolonged exposure lead to ongoing production of antibodies; (t) if the answer to (s) is negative, will a study or investigation be undertaken to determine this; (u) if the answer to (s) is affirmative, and if antibodies are the indicator of immunity, why does efficacy wane with time when the antigen production is prolonged; (v) has the purity of the modRNA contained in the COVID-19 vaccines been determined; (w) if the answer to (v) is affirmative, what is the present accepted limit of fragmented and truncated modRNA; (x) if the answer to (v) is negative, why hasn’t the purity of the modRNA been established; (y) if production of spike protein expression is prolonged for more than three to five days, are there harmful sequelae to prolonged exposure; and (z) if the answer to (y) is affirmative, what are those harmful sequelae?

With regard to Polar Knowledge Canada and the Canadian High Arctic Research Station (CHARS), which Polar Knowledge Canada operates: (a) how many full time equivalent (FTE) positions have been vacated in each year since 2015, in total, and broken down by Treasury Board classification level (e.g. AS-04, EX-02, etc.); (b) how many FTEs have been hired in each year since 2015, broken down by Treasury Board classification level; (c) of the employees currently at Polar Knowledge Canada, how many and what percentage have been there longer than (i) one year, (ii) five years, (iii) 10 years; (d) how many complaints regarding workplace harassment, bullying, racism, sexism, reprisal for whistleblowing, assault or other matters have been made by former or current Polar Knowledge Canada staff or consultants, or others who interact with Polar Knowledge Canada or CHARS, against Polar Knowledge Canada or CHARS (i.e. their staff or the entities), in each year since 2015, broken down by (i) year, (ii) resolution status; (e) what are the total expenditures on payouts or settlements made to former or current staff or consultants, or others who interact with Polar Knowledge Canada or CHARS, related to complaints made regarding workplace harassment, bullying, racism, sexism, reprisal for whistleblowing, assault or other matters against Polar Knowledge Canada or CHARS (i.e. their staff or the entities); (f) how much in severance or other types of payouts has been paid to departing Polar Knowledge Canada and CHARS staff, broken down by year, since 2015; (g) what are the expenditures in legal fees spent by Polar Knowledge Canada or CHARS in relation to complaints made regarding harassment, bullying, racism, sexism, reprisal for whistleblowing, assault or other matters, broken down by year, since 2015; (h) since 2015, have any requests been made to increase funding related to legal fees beyond the original annual budgeted amount by either Polar Knowledge Canada or CHARS, and, if so, what are the details of any such requests, including, for each, (i) the date, (ii) who made the request, (iii) the outcome; (i) what is the total number of lawsuits regarding harassment, negligence, unfulfilled contracts or wrongful dismissal that were filed against Polar Knowledge Canada or CHARS, broken down by year; (j) what are the details of all contracts issued since 2015, including, for each, the (i) vendor, (ii) vendor address, (iii) date, (iv) total dollar value of the contract, (v) scope and deliverables of the contract, (vi) manner in which the contract was awarded (i.e. sole-sourced, competitive bid); (k) how many FTE positions are or have been filled by persons that are family members or close friends of existing employees at Polar Knowledge Canada or CHARS; (l) what are the details of Polar Knowledge Canada’s or CHARS' nepotism policy in their hiring policies from 2015 to the present, including the details of any substantive changes that have been made and the year any such changes were made; (m) what are the details of Polar Knowledge Canada’s and CHARS' contract procurement processes and policies from 2015 to the present, including the details of any substantive changes that have been made and the year any such changes were made; (n) what are the details of Polar Knowledge Canada’s and CHARS' workplace harassment policies, including prevention policies, and the details of any substantive changes that have been made and the year any such changes were made; (o) what are the details of Polar Knowledge Canada's and CHARS' current organizational charts, including all permanent full- and part-time positions, and any contractors involved in day-to-day operations, as well as associated Treasury Board classification levels; (p) what were the results of the aggregated data from the 2022 Public Service Employee Survey for Polar Knowledge Canada, broken down by survey question posed to employees (e.g. My Job, My Work Unit, My Immediate Supervisor, Senior Management, My Organization (Department or Agency), Mobility and Retention, Harassment, Discrimination, Stress and Well-Being, Duty to Accommodate, Compensation, Hybrid Work, General Information, etc); and (q) how many grants, contributions or contracts were flagged by Polar Knowledge Canada staff or members of its Board of Directors for potential conflicts of interests, broken down by year and value?