Debates of Oct. 30th, 2024

Question No.2918—

[Yasir Naqvi, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, in response to parts (a) to (q) of the question, the health and safety of Canadians are the utmost priority for Health Canada. Health Canada has a rigorous scientific review system in place to ensure vaccines are safe and effective in preventing the diseases they target. More information on these standards and how Health Canada regulates vaccines for human use in Canada can be found at https://bit.ly/36xea3C. Once vaccines are authorized, Health Canada releases information about the vaccine, including summaries of the data considered by Health Canada. This includes non-clinical, clinical and other studies, as well as how the decision was made. This information can be found on Health Canada’s website at http://bit.ly/30LJM2z.

Studies to support the safety of the COVID-19 vaccines were conducted and were submitted as part of the pre-clinical and clinical data packages that companies are required to submit to regulatory agencies, including Health Canada. These data were analyzed by Health Canada prior to authorizations being granted for the COVID-19 vaccines.

The evaluation of toxicity of the COVID-19 mRNA vaccines was focused on the vaccines themselves, the components and the delivery system. In non-clinical studies, the toxicity of vaccines was tested either as the whole product containing the delivery system as marketed in Canada, medicinal ingredients, i.e COVID-19 antigens, or non-medicinal ingredients, including the components in the formulation.

Polyethylene glycol, or PEG, is an ingredient that is widely used in cosmetics, food products, and pharmaceuticals. Monoclonal antibodies, for example, are frequently conjugated with PEG to increase stability. Products containing PEGylated lipid nanoparticles, or LNPs, such as Onpattro, have been on the Canadian market for several years and are not unique to the COVID-19 vaccines.

In the product monograph, the composition/components contained in the vaccine, including the LNPs, are listed in the Table of “Dosage Form, Strength, Composition and Packaging”. The important data from the required toxicity tests for the vaccine product are also presented.

The manufacturing data provided to Health Canada demonstrated the ability to produce a vaccine with consistent quality. Impurities, including residual DNA, are controlled through maximum permissible limits during the manufacturing process and before the product is released on the market to ensure safety. These impurities are evaluated using validated assays, and limits are set to ensure product quality and safety. These requirements are informed by science and are aligned with international standards, including the International Council for Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Pharmaceuticals for Human Use.

More information is publicly available in the Summary Basis of Decision available on the COVID-19 Vaccines and Treatments Portal on canada.ca.

Following authorization, Canada has a robust and well-established vaccine safety surveillance system involving Health Canada, Public Health Agency of Canada, or PHAC, provinces and territories, and vaccine manufacturers. Health Canada continues to monitor the safety profile of health products once they are on the Canadian market, to help ensure that the benefits of the product continue to outweigh the risks. The safety profile of these products is monitored by reviewing safety information submitted by manufacturers as well as considering safety information from international regulators. When new safety issues are confirmed by the department, Health Canada takes action, which may include communicating new risks to Canadians and healthcare professionals or changing the recommended use of the product. In addition, Health Canada and the PHAC have been actively monitoring and reviewing reports of adverse events following immunization, or AEFI, reported to the Canada Vigilance Program of Health Canada and the Canadian Adverse Events Following Immunization Surveillance System of the PHAC. This information is published on the Government of Canada’s website. It is important to note that these reports do not necessarily imply that a relationship between the adverse event and the vaccine has been established. However, they are an important information source supporting ongoing safety monitoring.

Question No.2919—

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

With regard to the project “Board of Education of School District No. 62 (Sooke)” under Health Canada's Substance Use and Addictions Program, broken down by participating elementary, middle and secondary schools: (a) what are the names of the schools; (b) what is the cost of the curriculum, broken down by subject, which is being taught to the students; (c) what are the total number of materials that are being disseminated to the students, in total, and broken down by the names and titles of those materials; (d) broken down by schedule I, II, and III drugs and substances as defined by the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, how much of the total funding is being allocated to each specific “primary focus” as defined by the program, broken down by each specific drug and substance; (e) how many staff or volunteers are being funded; and (f) is it a mandatory requirement for all staff or volunteers to undergo a criminal background check, and (i) have staff or volunteers been subjected to criminal background checks, (ii) have any criminal background checks for staff or volunteers turned up criminal convictions that are indictable or summary convictions, (iii) was any hired as staff or a volunteer with an indictable or summary conviction?

[Élisabeth Brière, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Families]

Mr. Speaker, with regard to part (a), Health Canada, through the substance use and addictions program, or SUAP, has a contribution agreement with the board of education of schools district number 62 in Sooke. The funding is allocated to this organization and is not broken down by individual schools. According to the parameters of the agreement, funding recipients have the option to distribute a portion of their funding to other eligible third parties. Third parties are defined as individuals or entities that receive funding from the Health Canada funding recipient to carry out specific components of a project. This can include schools, with their participation at the discretion of the funding recipient.

The Health Canada funding recipient is responsible for distributing the funds and overseeing the progress of projects undertaken by any third parties. All third party funding is subject to the terms outlined in the Health Canada contribution agreement, or CA.

All funded recipients are required to account for the funds they receive from SUAP, including any amounts disbursed to third parties. They must submit a detailed budget, annual cash flow forecasts and records of expenditures on a regular basis.

With regard to parts (b), (c) and (d), the board of education of school district number 62 in Sooke is implementing a project titled “Strengthening Substance Use Prevention, Harm Reduction, and Pathways to Care in Sooke School District”. This initiative supports middle and secondary school-based events aimed at improving awareness of substance use issues among teachers in order to help them better support youth with concerning substance use behaviors and implement evidence-based drug education approaches. With SUAP funding, the organization has initiated its “Youth in Action” campaign, which includes planning and hosting health-related activities.

Curriculum development and the dissemination of materials developed for students are not central to this SUAP-funded project. Therefore, information regarding related costs and titles of materials developed for distribution to students is not available.

The recipient is not required to track or report budget expenditures categorized by substance.

The recipient holds sole responsibility for determining the focus of learning events and resources within the parameters of their school district policies and professional practice needs. School-based curriculum is supported by the B.C. Ministry of Education and managed by individual school districts. Health Canada does not direct these activities or participate in direct decision-making related to them.

To date, the project has produced and delivered 16 learning opportunities and six knowledge products in response to requests from teachers, counsellors, principals and vice-principals for easy access to evidence-aligned resources.

Two examples of initiatives implemented are as follows. One was a series of full-day, secondary school-based training events on naloxone education to 270 participating youth and staff. In addition, the project supported a forum for youth to learn more about and provide input into a regional youth strategy based on the results of the adolescent health survey available on the Sooke school website, which included a dialogue on how to reduce exposure to harms from substance use.

With regard to part (e), the project provides funding for release time of approximately 40 teachers. This allows for teachers on call to be compensated for replacing approximately 40 regular full-time teachers for a period of two days of participation in training and workshops related to the project.

With regard to part (f), the board of education of school district number 62 mandates that all employed personnel undergo and pass a criminal records check as a condition of employment. Further details about this policy can be accessed on its website.

With regard to parts (f)(i), (ii) and (iii), under their agreement with Health Canada, funded organizations are not required to report on or disclose the results of any criminal records check on their staff. However, Health Canada retains the right to request project-related information with reasonable notice at its discretion.

Question No.2925—

[Dan Muys, Conservative, Flamborough—Glanbrook, ON]

With regard to all infrastructure projects that have received government funding since November 4, 2015, that require the use of steel: (a) what percentage of projects used only steel produced in Canada; (b) what percentage of projects partially used steel produced in Canada; and (c) what percentage of projects used steel produced outside of Canada?

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Housing]

Mr. Speaker, with regard to all infrastructure projects that have received government funding since November 4, 2015, that require the use of steel, Housing, Infrastructure and Communities Canada, or HICC, undertook an extensive preliminary search in order to determine the amount of information that would fall within the scope of the question and the amount of time that would be required to prepare a comprehensive response. The information requested is not systematically tracked in a centralized database. HICC concluded that producing and validating a comprehensive response to this question would require a manual collection of information that is not possible in the time allotted and could lead to the disclosure of incomplete and misleading information.

For more information on projects funded under HICC’s contribution programs please visit https://www.infrastructure.gc.ca/gmap-gcarte/index-eng.html and https://open.canada.ca/data/organization/infc.

Question No.2929—

[Karen Vecchio, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

With regard to federally funded research for children’s illnesses: (a) how much federal funding was given out since 2015, broken down (i) year, (ii) province, (iii) illness, (iv) organization type; (b) which organizations received funding; (c) of (b), how much did each organization received, broken down by total amount (i) under $1000, (ii) $1,000 to $4,999, (iii) $5,000 to $9,999, (iv) $10 000 to $24,999, (v) $25,000 to $49,9999, (vi) $50,000 to $99,999, (vii) $100,000 to $249,999, (viii) $250,000 to $499,999, (ix) $500,000 to $999,999, (x) more than $1,000,000; (d) how many funding opportunities were available; (e) how many applications were received; (f) how many applications were accepted; (g) how much did Health Canada spend in-house; and (h) what reports were provided to the Government of Canada?

[Yasir Naqvi, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, without a comprehensive list of children’s illnesses, it is not possible to determine how much Canadian Institutes of Health Research, or CIHR, funding has been allocated in this area since 2015. Additionally, CIHR has concluded that identifying projects and then producing and validating a comprehensive response to this question would require a manual collection and validation of information that is not possible in the time allotted and could lead to the disclosure of incomplete and misleading information.

All CIHR funding decisions are publicly available in the CIHR funding decisions database, available at https://webapps.cihr-irsc.gc.ca/decisions/p/main.html?lang=en#sort=namesort%20asc&start=0&rows=20

Question No.2931—

[Karen Vecchio, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

With regard to the safety of novel therapeutic products approved by Health Canada (HC) through Agile Licensing: (a) does HC determine the specifications required to be completed by the manufacturer to determine a therapeutic product’s safety for use by Canadians based primarily on its (i) therapeutic indication, (ii) pharmacological mechanism of action; (b) how does HC determine that a therapeutic product is safe; (c) what clinical and pre-clinical criteria are used by HC to make a safety assessment in regards to (i) vaccines, (ii) modified mRNA products, (iii) lipid nanotechnology, (iv) medications, (v) other biologics; (d) based on the pharmacological phase of the COVID-19 vaccines (i.e. from administration to spike protein expression), (i) are adverse events following immunizations adequately detected based on the Brighton Collaboration Criteria, (ii) what are the anticipated adverse events; (e) if the answer to (d)(i) is affirmative, how has this been confirmed; (f) what specific criteria were used to confirm the COVID-19 vaccines’ safety profile at their time of (i) approval, (ii) authorization; (g) based on the requirements in (b), (c) and (f), was that information adequate to categorically declare the safety of the COVID-19 vaccines for all cohorts at the time of their (i) approval, (ii) authorization; (h) does approval of a novel therapeutic product based on the Agile Licensing pathway require criteria that are equivalent to that required under C.08.001(2) of the Food and Drug Regulations; (i) if the answer to (g) or (h) is negative, who approved the messaging from government, public health officials, and other authorities that “COVID-19 vaccines do not get approval from HC unless they are safe” or that “all vaccines authorized in Canada are safe”; (j) how has safety of the COVID-19 vaccines been re-evaluated based on detected impurities, including (i) residual DNA, (ii) residual dsRNA, (iii) SV-40 enhancer sequence, (iv) endotoxins, (v) unknown peptides resulting from frameshifting; and (k) how has safety of the COVID-19 vaccine been evaluated based on remaining excessive intracellular N1-methylpseudouridine following degradation of the synthetic modified mRNA?

[Yasir Naqvi, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, with regard to parts (a) to (k), the health and safety of Canadians are Health Canada’s top priority and the department exercises stringent regulatory oversight over biologics, including vaccines. Before any of the COVID-19 vaccines were approved in Canada, the department conducted rigorous scientific review of the extensive data regarding the vaccines’ safety, efficacy and quality, including results of preclinical and clinical studies, details on manufacturing processes and information on adverse events following immunization. An authorization was only issued when the benefits of the COVID-19 vaccine outweighed the risks of its use.

For all products authorized by Health Canada, the summary basis of decision is published on the website https://dhpp.hpfb-dgpsa.ca/review-documents. This document details the clinical and preclinical data analyzed and provides a rationale for the review decision. Furthermore, as part of the regulatory requirements, a product monograph is publicly released at the time of a vaccine’s authorization. A product monograph is a factual, scientific document on the drug product that, devoid of promotional material, describes the properties, claims, indications and conditions of use for the drug, and contains any other information that may be required for optimal, safe and effective use of the drug. It is used to inform physicians, pharmacists, dentists, nurses, other health care professionals and patients about the appropriate use of the product.

The product monograph is developed and managed by the manufacturer. The content, wordings and format are carefully reviewed by Health Canada to ensure that it is prepared in accordance with the guidance. Each publicly available Canadian product monograph can be consulted by accessing the drug product database at https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/drugs-health-products/drug-products/drug-product-database.html. It describes the specific evaluation methods and data used to assess safety and effectiveness for each product. As part of this assessment, Health Canada relies on clinical trials that are assessed against established international and national standards.

At the time of authorization, the safety information included in the product monograph and in package inserts is based on the available safety data from clinical trials. Furthermore, Health Canada is responsible for ensuring that the product monograph and package inserts are updated over time to adequately reflect the risks associated with the vaccines that are authorized in Canada. Health Canada-approved information is used by appropriate bodies, such as provincial and local public health authorities, to guide recommendations, vaccine use, as well as information provided to vaccine recipients. The product monograph also contains a list of adverse reactions observed during clinical trials for the product. Each drug product authorized for sale in Canada has labelling that reflects Health Canada's assessment of the product at the time of approval.

For new drug submissions, the product sponsor proposes a therapeutic indication supported by clinical trials and other data. During review of the submission, Health Canada conducts its assessment. A drug’s pharmacological mechanism of action is considered within this context. It is noted that no health product is without risks. Adverse events from the clinical trials submitted by the sponsor are carefully assessed, considered within the context of the condition treated or prevented by the product, and labelled in the product monograph, linked above.

Following authorization, Canada has a robust and well-established vaccine safety surveillance system involving Health Canada, the Public Health Agency of Canada, or PHAC, the provinces and territories, and vaccine manufacturers. Health Canada continues to monitor the safety profile of health products once they are in the Canadian market, to help ensure that the benefits of the products continue to outweigh the risks. The safety profile of these products is monitored by reviewing safety information submitted by manufacturers and by considering safety information from international regulators.

In addition, Health Canada and PHAC have been actively monitoring and reviewing reports of adverse events following immunization, or AEFIs, reported to the Canada vigilance program, or CVP, of Health Canada and the Canadian adverse events following immunization surveillance system of PHAC. Adverse events of special interest, or AESIs, which are potentially associated with vaccine products, must also be carefully monitored and confirmed by further evaluation. Information on AEFIs and AESIs is published on the Government of Canada’s website at https://health-infobase.canada.ca/covid-19/vaccine-safety/.

It is important to note that these reports do not necessarily imply that a relationship between the adverse event and the vaccine has been established. However, they are an important information source supporting ongoing safety monitoring. When new safety issues are confirmed by the department, Health Canada takes action, which may include communicating new risks to Canadians and health care professionals or changing the recommended use of the product.

The Brighton Collaboration, or BC, was established in 2001 to provide standardized, validated and objective methods for monitoring the safety profile and benefit-to-risk ratios of vaccines. This includes the development of globally implemented case definitions, guidance and protocols for data collection and comparability within and across clinical trials, surveillance systems, and post-licensure clinical studies. Health Canada has been implementing the BC criteria on case definition when assessing AEFI reports retrieved from the CVP.

Information about AEFIs reported in Canada, including the BC criteria, is published on the Government of Canada’s website at https://health-infobase.canada.ca/covid-19/vaccine-safety/.

With respect to product quality, Health Canada performs a thorough review of manufacturing processes and controls. Impurity levels in all product types are controlled by predetermined limits in place during product manufacturing and before the product is released onto the market. Health Canada ensures that scientifically justified methods are in place to monitor impurities and that the limits set are appropriate to ensure the safety of patients. The impurities are adequately controlled by the existing control system.

Agile licensing for drugs and medical devices are regulatory amendments being proposed to the food and drug regulations and the medical devices regulations. The agile regulatory proposal was pre-published in the Canada Gazette, part I, for a 130-day consultation, which closed on April 26, 2023. The proposed regulations are intended to reduce irritants and regulatory roadblocks to innovation by introducing regulations that are more agile and internationally aligned increasing postmarket oversight without compromising premarket rigour. The measures that will be introduced as part of these modernization efforts will not lessen Health Canada’s commitment to the health and safety of Canadians. The department will continue to require the same high standards of evidence about the safety, efficacy and quality of drugs and medical devices prior to authorization for sale and once on market.

Health Canada is targeting a fall 2024 Treasury Board date, with publication of the finalized regulations in the Canada Gazette, part II. As these amendments have not yet received Governor in Council approval, they are not currently considered under the regulations.

Question No.2932—

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

With regard to the Canada Emergency Business Account, broken down by province or territory and city: how many small and medium businesses which were classified as grocery or convenience stores filed for bankruptcy after January 1, 2024?

[Maninder Sidhu, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Export Promotion]

Mr. Speaker, Canada emergency business account applicants are not required to provide industry information at the time of application. Therefore, bankruptcy data by industry sector is not available.

Question No.2934—

[Larry Maguire, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

With regard to the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) and their involvement in the inaugural Five Eyes alliance Unidentified Aerial Phenomena caucus working group on May 24, 2023: (a) what was the agenda of the May 24, 2023 meeting; (b) what are the names and titles of all CAF personnel who attended the meeting; and (c) has the CAF participated in any other meetings of the working group and, if so, what are the dates, agenda items, and details of CAF participants at each such meeting?

[Marie-France Lalonde, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, as outlined in “Our North, Strong and Free”, Canada has always believed that a multilateral approach is critical to the effective delivery of the defence mandate. That is why National Defence has many partnerships on the continent and around the globe, including through the Five Eyes alliance with the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia and New Zealand.

In relation to the question above, a meeting of the Five Eyes unidentified aerial phenomena caucus working group was organized and hosted by the United States on May 24, 2023. Meeting details, including the agenda, remain under the purview of the United States.

Two officials from the Royal Canadian Airforce and the Canadian Forces Intelligence Command attended the working group meeting. National Defence applies the principles of the Access to Information Act and protects information on the grounds that disclosing certain information could be injurious to national security and defence. Therefore, further details cannot be disclosed.

Finally, in terms of any other meetings of the working group, National Defence carried out a manual search of its records within the allotted time and found no instances of further participation by members of the defence team.

Question No.2941—

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

With regard to amounts collected from the federal fuel charge: (a) to date, how much has been paid by municipalities, including any municipal department or agency, broken down by province or territory, municipality and by year; and (b) how much is estimated to be paid by municipalities in the future, broken down by province or territory, municipality and year?

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, climate change is an existential challenge, and climate action is critical to Canada’s long term health and economic prosperity. Carbon pricing is widely recognized as the most efficient means of reducing our greenhouse gas, or GHG, emissions, which is why the Government of Canada continues to make sure that it is not free to pollute in Canada.

The federal price on pollution is revenue-neutral for the federal government; all of the direct proceeds from the federal carbon pricing system remain in the province or territory where they are collected. Put simply, every dollar collected from the carbon price is returned.

The fuel charge is generally paid at the producer or distributor level and passed on to purchasers as part of the price paid for fuel. Monthly fuel charge returns only account for aggregate amounts by fuel type and by province or territory. Typically, once the fuel charge has been paid by a fuel producer or distributor, there is no further reporting of who ultimately bears the cost of the federal fuel charge.

In the provinces where the fuel charge applies, the majority of households receive more with the Canada carbon rebate than they incur in carbon pricing-related costs. The government reports the direct fuel charge proceeds collected and returned annually through the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act annual report. For more information on the proceeds collected and returned, please see the annual report for 2022 at the following website: https://publications.gc.ca/site/eng/9.893583/publication.html.

Questions Passed as Orders for Returns

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, if the government's responses to Questions Nos. 2906, 2908, 2911 to 2913, 2915, 2917, 2920 to 2924, 2926 to 2928, 2933, 2935 to 2940, and 2942 to 2946 could be made orders for return, these returns would be tabled in an electronic format immediately.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

Is it agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

Question No.2906—

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC]

With regard to the National Trade Corridors Fund (NTCF): (a) under the “National Call to Address Capacity Constraints” first call for proposals in July 2017, how many projects were approved for British Columbia; (b) under the “Continuous call for Trade Diversification” launched on January 15, 2019, how many projects were approved for British Columbia; (c) under the “lncreasing the Fluidity of Canada's Supply Chains” launched on December 9, 2021, how many projects were approved for British Columbia; (d) under the “Relieving Supply Chain Congestion at Canadian Ports” launched on January 31, 2022, how many projects were approved for British Columbia; (e) under the “Advancing Supply Chain Digitalization” launched on February 13, 2023, how many projects were approved for British Columbia; (f) what is the current status of every NTCF funded project in British Columbia; and (g) how much program spending has been done each year since 2017-18?

(Return tabled)

Question No.2908—

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC]

With regard to changes in capital gains taxes as announced in budget 2024: after removing capital gains income from the calculation of total personal income, what is the share of capital gains tax revenue collected from those earning (i) equal or less than $50,000, (ii) between $50,001 and $100,000, (iii) between $100,001 and $150,000, (iv) over $150,000?

(Return tabled)

Question No.2911—

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

With regard to the 2 Billion Trees Commitment, broken down by province or territory since its inception: (a) what is the total amount of funding allocated under each of the (i) cost-sharing agreements with provinces and territories, (ii) Privates Lands stream, (iii) Urban Lands stream, (iv) Federal Lands stream, (v) distinctions based Indigenous stream; (b) what is the total amount of funding delivered under each of the (i) cost-sharing agreements with provinces and territories, (ii) Privates Lands stream, (iii) Urban Lands stream, (iv) Federal Lands stream, (v) distinctions based Indigenous stream; and (c) what is the total amount of funding on hold or undelivered under each of the (i) cost-sharing agreements with provinces and territories, (ii) Privates Lands stream, (iii) Urban Lands stream, (iv) Federal Lands stream, (v) distinctions based Indigenous stream?

(Return tabled)

Question No.2912—

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

With regard to species listed under the Species at Risk Act since October 2015, broken down by status (i.e. extirpated, endangered, threatened and special concern): (a) how many recovery strategies or management plans were (i) produced within the timelines set out in the act, (ii) overdue; (b) how many action plans required to support the implementation of recovery strategies were (i) produced within the timelines set out in the act, (ii) overdue; (c) how many species do not yet have recovery strategies or management plans; and (d) how many recovery strategies do not yet have action plans?