House Publications
The Debates are the report—transcribed, edited, and corrected—of what is said in the House. The Journals are the official record of the decisions and other transactions of the House. The Order Paper and Notice Paper contains the listing of all items that may be brought forward on a particular sitting day, and notices for upcoming items.
For an advanced search, use Publication Search tool.
If you have any questions or comments regarding the accessibility of this publication, please contact us at accessible@parl.gc.ca.
|
|
|
Notice PaperNo. 308 Friday, May 3, 2024 10:00 a.m. |
|
|
|
|
Introduction of Government Bills |
|
Introduction of Private Members' Bills |
|
Notices of Motions (Routine Proceedings) |
|
| May 2, 2024 — Mr. Seeback (Dufferin—Caledon) — That the 17th report of the Standing Committee on International Trade, presented on Monday, April 29, 2024, be concurred in. |
|
|
| May 2, 2024 — Mr. Seeback (Dufferin—Caledon) — That the 18th report of the Standing Committee on International Trade, presented on Monday, April 29, 2024, be concurred in. |
|
|
| May 2, 2024 — Mr. Seeback (Dufferin—Caledon) — That the sixth report of the Special Committee on the Canada–People’s Republic of China Relationship, presented on Thursday, April 18, 2024, be concurred in. |
|
|
| May 2, 2024 — Mr. Seeback (Dufferin—Caledon) — That the 15th report of the Standing Committee on International Trade, presented on Thursday, April 18, 2024, be concurred in. |
|
|
| May 2, 2024 — Mr. Seeback (Dufferin—Caledon) — That the 16th report of the Standing Committee on International Trade, presented on Thursday, April 18, 2024, be concurred in. |
Questions |
|
| Q-26512 — May 2, 2024 — Mr. Carrie (Oshawa) — 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 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 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? |
| Q-26522 — May 2, 2024 — Mr. Carrie (Oshawa) — 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? |
| Q-26532 — May 2, 2024 — Ms. Rood (Lambton—Kent—Middlesex) — 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? |
| Q-26542 — May 2, 2024 — Ms. Rood (Lambton—Kent—Middlesex) — 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? |
| Q-26552 — May 2, 2024 — Mr. Cooper (St. Albert—Edmonton) — 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? |
| Q-26562 — May 2, 2024 — Mr. Cooper (St. Albert—Edmonton) — 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? |
| Q-26572 — May 2, 2024 — Mr. Cooper (St. Albert—Edmonton) — 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? |
| Q-26582 — May 2, 2024 — Mr. Richards (Banff—Airdrie) — 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? |
| Q-26592 — May 2, 2024 — Mrs. Falk (Battlefords—Lloydminster) — 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? |
| Q-26602 — May 2, 2024 — Mrs. Falk (Battlefords—Lloydminster) — 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? |
| Q-26612 — May 2, 2024 — Mr. Tolmie (Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan) — 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? |
| Q-26622 — May 2, 2024 — Mr. Tolmie (Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan) — 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? |
| Q-26632 — May 2, 2024 — Mr. Steinley (Regina—Lewvan) — 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? |
| Q-26642 — May 2, 2024 — Mr. Patzer (Cypress Hills—Grasslands) — 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? |
| Q-26652 — May 2, 2024 — Mr. Allison (Niagara West) — 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 (vi) are affirmative, what were their individual responses; (r) if the answers to (p)(i) to (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? |
| Q-26662 — May 2, 2024 — Mr. Nater (Perth—Wellington) — 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? |
| Q-26672 — May 2, 2024 — Mr. Kitchen (Souris—Moose Mountain) — 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? |
| Q-26682 — May 2, 2024 — Mrs. Gallant (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke) — 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? |
| Q-26692 — May 2, 2024 — Mr. Allison (Niagara West) — 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? |
| Q-26702 — May 2, 2024 — Mr. Allison (Niagara West) — 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 Ors 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; (q) 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; (r) at any time, did Plizer ever suggest that regulatory sequence elements in question were functional following inoculation into humans; and (s) if the answer to (r) is affirmative, what and when did Pfizer inform HC? |
| Q-26712 — May 2, 2024 — Mr. Therrien (La Prairie) — 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? |
| Q-26722 — May 2, 2024 — Mrs. Wagantall (Yorkton—Melville) — 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? |
| Q-26732 — May 2, 2024 — Mrs. Wagantall (Yorkton—Melville) — 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? |
| Q-26742 — May 2, 2024 — Ms. McPherson (Edmonton Strathcona) — 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? |
Notices of Motions for the Production of Papers |
|
Business of Supply |
|
Government Business |
|
Private Members' Notices of Motions |
|
Private Members' Business |
| C-375 — March 18, 2024 — Resuming consideration of the motion of Mr. Deltell (Louis-Saint-Laurent), seconded by Mr. Soroka (Yellowhead), — That Bill C-375, An Act to amend the Impact Assessment Act (federal-provincial agreements), be now read a second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development. |
| Debate — one hour remaining, pursuant to Standing Order 93(1). |
| Voting — at the expiry of the time provided for debate, pursuant to Standing Order 93(1). |
|
|
|
| 2 Response requested within 45 days |
|