Debates of April 8th, 2024

Question No.2307—

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills, ON]

With regard to Global Affairs Canada's (GAC) reaction to two Canadian Hells Angels named in an indictment in the United States related to a plot to kill an Iranian defector: (a) did GAC request of Italy, which is Canada's protecting power in Iran, to make representations to Iran regarding this matter; (b) if the answer to (a) is affirmative, what specific message was delivered and on what date; and (c) if the answer to (a) is negative, why was no request made of Italy?

[Rob Oliphant, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, the following reflects a consolidated response approved on behalf of Global Affairs Canada ministers.

Global Affairs Canada is unable to provide additional information regarding this case as it is a matter of on-going legal proceedings.

Question No.2308—

[Fraser Tolmie, Conservative, Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan, SK]

With regard to the Department of National Defence issuing a posting for two journalists to engage in "role playing services" to prepare its spokespeople for challenging media questions: (a) what is the pay associated with such postings; (b) who authorized the decision to spend money on role playing services; and (c) why was the money in (a) not spent on investments in the Canadian Armed Forces?

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

Mr. Speaker, the Defence Public Affairs Learning Centre, or DPALC, provides Department of National Defence and Canadian Armed Forces, or CAF, personnel with specialized military public affairs and communications training. This directly contributes to the objectives of the Defence Team, including the CAF, to uphold transparency and to effectively communicate the complex work undertaken by our members in support of the Government of Canada.

Contractors are used by the DPALC for certain ad-hoc components of media training, including for Spokesperson training. On January 15, 2024, the Assistant Deputy Minister, Public Affairs, issued a Tender Notice for the professional services of two role-playing journalists.

The contracting rates will be based on the per diem rates proposed by the successful bidder. The successful bidder is the bidder that has the highest combined rating of technical merit and price. Given that the Tender Notice closed on February 23, 2024, pay rates are not yet available. Bidders must comply with the appropriate Treasury Board Security and Integrity provisions. The chosen contractor for these positions would be paid fixed time rates on the specific dates that services are rendered.

Question No.2310—

[Michael Kram, Conservative, Regina—Wascana, SK]

With regard to Parks Canada and the eradication of deer on Sidney Island: (a) were other lower-cost options to hunt and kill the invasive deer studied or considered prior to the implementation of phase one, including, but not limited to, allowing local hunters to hunt the deer for free; (b) for each option in (a), what is the reason that it was rejected; (c) what options did Parks Canada study or consider for the implementation of phase two of the deer eradication; (d) for each option in (c), what was the estimated cost and why was each option accepted or rejected; and (e) once all phases of the eradication are fully implemented, what does Parks Canada estimate to be the cost per invasive deer killed?

[Steven Guilbeault, Liberal, Minister of Environment and Climate Change]

Mr. Speaker, in response to parts a), b), c) and d), various options to manage fallow deer on Sidney Island have been considered and adopted by Parks Canada.

Recreational hunters have been hunting fallow deer on the private lands on Sidney Island since 1981, including paid and professional culls. Despite removing almost 15,000 deer, the population has continually rebounded. These culls have not been successful at keeping the deer population at a healthy level for the ecosystem.

The Sidney Island Ecological Restoration Project is a multi-jurisdictional restoration project that aims to facilitate recovery of forest ecosystems that have been significantly damaged due to over-browsing by introduced invasive European fallow deer. The project has been collaboratively built from the ground up, with project partners co-developing the project’s vision and goals, thorough expert analysis by specialists and animal welfare organizations to implement the project safely, and then co-designing restoration actions. Project partners—including the W̱SÁNEĆ Leadership Council, Tsawout First Nation, Pauquachin First Nation, the Province of British Columbia, Islands Trust Conservancy, and Sidney Island residents—made the decision to proceed with eradication after more than 40 years of population control efforts, including culls, have not successfully facilitated ecosystem recovery.

Project partners formed a project steering committee in 2019, and developed a three-part strategy for long-term ecosystem recovery, focusing on vegetation restoration, the eradication of European fallow deer, and the long-term management of black-tailed deer. Each project partner underwent an internal process to determine whether their community or organization supported the proposed strategy for ecosystem recovery. In spring 2023, all project partners formally approved the implementation of the strategy.

Other methods of population management were also considered, including the following. Capturing and relocating animals to other areas. Relocation transfers negative impacts as European fallow deer are invasive to the whole region and relocation would result in ecological degradation elsewhere. Sterilization of the fallow deer on Sidney Islands. Sterilization does not allow for a complete removal of the population. Unless completely removed, the population of fallow deer will eventually rebound, as it has been seen previously after culls on Sidney Island. Surgical sterilization would require the successful capture of every individual male or female in the population, which would be incredibly resource-intensive and also poses significant feasibility challenges.

Parks Canada did not conduct a cost analysis on these methods of deer population management because the options did not meet the needs of the project for the reasons listed earlier.

The intention of the Sidney Island Ecological Restoration Project is to eradicate the invasive fallow deer on Sidney Island. This operation is not a cull, it is an eradication. An eradication requires different skillsets than a cull, particularly as the project area includes private residential lots, many with residential built environment and some with full-time residents. Marksmen with extensive experience in deer eradications and a well-established safety record of marksmanship in semi-urban environments are necessary for the operation to be completed safely and effectively. Specific statutory and regulatory authorities are required for this operation, including permits granted by Parks Canada, Transport Canada, the Province of British Columbia and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. With eradication, the goal is zero animals remaining from the target population. Access to private property is required for this operation which was provided by the Sidney Island Strata Corporation and the Islands Trust Conservancy.

Animal welfare and visitor safety are priorities for Parks Canada. The proposed eradication methods were selected to ensure the humane treatment of wildlife and to minimize the safety risk to local community members and visitors. Public Services and Procurement Canada, on behalf of Parks Canada, posted a solicitation process requiring bidders to have experience conducting eradication operations in populated landscapes.

A primary contractor was tasked with the development and implementation of an operational plan for eradication of invasive European fallow deer from Sidney Island, including Phase 1 and Phase 2 of the project. Public Services and Procurement Canada (PSPC), on behalf of Parks Canada, awarded this contract to the successful bidder, Coastal Conservation Inc., a Canadian company, on March 29, 2022. The Request for Proposals was posted publicly and available to domestic and international firms.

With respect to part (e), the fallow deer eradication project cost is not determined on the basis of a cost per deer. The project cost is based on the selection of a humane and effective method for complete removal of the population of deer. The scope of the overall restoration project reaches far beyond the short-term component of addressing the issue of fallow deer and includes propagation and planting of native plants and trees. The project goal is the restoration of the Coastal Douglas-Fir Forest ecosystem on Sidney Island. The estimated budget for the ecosystem restoration project is $5.9 million, $796,340 of which was incurred for Phase 1. These expenses are for more than deer eradication, they include expenses such as meat processing, Indigenous harvesters, equipment purchases and rentals, outreach activities, and amounts paid to contractors.

Question No.2311—

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

With regard to the government's Medical Expense Tax Credit, broken down by year since 2016: (a) how many individuals filed medical expenses for gluten-free products; (b) what was the total value of tax credits claimed for gluten-free food products; (c) what is the breakdown of the individuals who claimed medical expenses for gluten-free products by income level; (d) how many audits were conducted on individuals claiming gluten-free products as a medical expense; (e) what is the administrative cost to administer this tax credit; and (f) how many employees or full-time equivalents are assigned to administer this tax credit?

[Marie-Claude Bibeau, Liberal, Minister of National Revenue]

Mr. Speaker, with respect to the noted question, what follows is the response from the Canada Revenue Agency, or CRA, as of February 9, 2024, that is, the date of the question.

The Medical Expense Tax Credit is a non-refundable tax credit that can be used to reduce tax that is paid or may have to be paid. Expenses include a wide range of products, procedures and services. Persons with celiac disease can claim the incremental costs associated with buying gluten-free food products as a medical expense.

With respect to parts (a), (b) and (c), on the T1 General Income Tax and Benefit Return, the medical expense claims recorded on lines 33099 and 33199 encompass lump sums for various eligible expenses, some of which may not be related to celiac disease. Further information can be found on “https://www.canada.ca/en/revenue-agency/services/tax/individuals/topics/about-your-tax-return/tax-return/completing-a-tax-return/deductions-credits-expenses/lines-33099-33199-eligible-medical-expenses-you-claim-on-your-tax-return.html#hw_clm.

Although medical expenses are reviewed as part of the CRA’s compliance workload, the CRA does not track the various types of expenses which taxpayers are claiming on their tax return for medical expenses, nor are they broken down by income levels. As such, the CRA cannot respond in the manner requested.

With respect to parts (d), (e) and (f), through a variety of verification activities the CRA ensures taxpayers and benefit recipients comply with tax legislation administered by the CRA. The CRA cannot isolate the costs to administer this tax credit individually. This credit is one of numerous credits on the holistic T1 individual income tax and benefit return and is integrated into the blended activities of the CRA. As such, the CRA cannot respond in the manner requested.

Question No.2313—

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB]

With regard to the $256 million committed over five years in budget 2022 to the Fighting and Managing Wildfires in a Changing Climate program: how much of this commitment has been spent to date, in total, and broken down by specific investment?

[Jonathan Wilkinson, Liberal, Minister of Natural Resources and Energy]

Mr. Speaker, Budget 2022 announced $256 million for the Fighting and Managing Wildfires in a Changing Climate, or FMWCC, program to support the efforts of provinces and territories to strengthen capacities and capabilities in fire management across Canada by procuring specialized wildland firefighting equipment.

The Equipment Fund under the FMWCC currently has agreements in place with Alberta, British Columbia, Manitoba, New Brunswick, Newfoundland and Labrador, Nova Scotia, Saskatchewan, Northwest Territories and Yukon.

The program spent $6.75M in fiscal year 2022-2023 and has committed to spend another $30.9M for the 2023-2024 fiscal year to procure specialized equipment. To date, $188.8M has been committed over 5 years, with the remaining to be invested in the near future.

Of the $6.75M that has been spent to date, $6.62M was invested in specialized wildland firefighting equipment including, the repair of aging equipment, vehicles, mobile units, avionics upgrades, wildfire tools, first aid equipment, hoses, pumps, trailers, storage containers, chainsaws and accessories, fire camp water systems, weather stations and enhanced communications equipment. The remaining $0.13M was invested in personnel and training.

Question No.2317—

[Alex Ruff, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

With regard to the processing of requests made under the Access to Information Act and the Privacy Act (ATIP) by Parks Canada since January 2015: (a) how many requests have been received each year; (b) what is the average response time each year; (c) what was the shortest processing time each year; (d) what is the longest processing time each year; (e) how many hours of work were allocated to process ATIP requests broken down by year; (f) how many contracts for services have been issued to process ATIP requests, broken down by year; (g) what are the details of each contract in (f), including, for each, the (i) date, (ii) vendor, (iii) value, (iv) number of ATIP requests processed related to the contract; (h) how many complaints has Parks Canada received via the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada and the Office of the Information Commissioner of Canada regarding ATIP requests each year; (i) what tool does Parks Canada currently use for records management; (j) what is the amount of records held by Parks Canada that remain undigitized, including the quantity of records in total, broken down by year of record; and (k) what are the details of any specific investments, if any, that Parks Canada has undertaken to increase compliance with the Access to Information Act and Privacy Act regarding requests, including, the date, financial value, and description of each investment?

[Steven Guilbeault, Liberal, Minister of Environment and Climate Change]

Mr. Speaker, for the responses to parts (a) to (d) and (h) of the question, please refer to the statistical report on the Access to Information and Privacy Acts, published on the following website: https://parks.canada.ca/agence-agency/dp-pd/baiprp-atipo/rap-rep

With respect to part (e) of the question, the information requested is not systematically tracked in a centralized database. However, the length of time taken to process ATIP requests is calculated in calendar days and captured in the statistical report on the Access to Information and Privacy Acts, published on the following website: https://parks.canada.ca/agence-agency/dp-pd/baiprp-atipo/rap-rep

In response to parts (f) and (g), Parks Canada undertook a preliminary and broadly scoped 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. Parks Canada 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.

In response to part (i), records management at Parks Canada is managed through shared folders hosted on file servers, GCDocs and SharePoint. Parks Canada records are also held in the specialized applications PeopleSoft, or Oracle; Maximo, IBM; STAR, SAP; ArcGIS, ESRI; NIRS, or the national integrated realty system; PC411, or Parks Canada 411; IEM, or incident event management; ParksNet, Intrant; CCMe, and other Government of Canada applications hosted by the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat.

With respect to part (j), Parks Canada does not have an inventory of undigitized paper records.

With respect to part (k), Parks Canada has not undertaken any specific investments to increase compliance with the Access to Information and Privacy Act.

Question No.2318—

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

With regard to information on project applications subject to Inefficient Fossil Fuels Subsidies Guidelines held by the government: (a) how many applications have been submitted; (b) how many applications are being reviewed; (c) how many applications have been (i) approved, (ii) rejected, (iii) delayed; and (d) for each application in (a), (i) when was the application received, (ii) what are the details of each project, (iii) what is the estimated completion date?

[Steven Guilbeault, Liberal, Minister of Environment and Climate Change]

Mr. Speaker, as part of its effort to fulfill Canada’s G20 commitment to phase out or rationalize inefficient fossil fuel subsidies, on July 24, 2023, the Government of Canada released the “Inefficient Fossil Fuel Subsidies Government of Canada Self-Review Assessment Framework” and the “Inefficient Fossil Fuel Subsidies Government of Canada Guidelines”. The framework defines a fossil fuel subsidy and the methodology for assessing efficiency, while the guidelines are meant to avoid the creation of any new inefficient subsidies. The framework and guidelines were jointly developed by Environment and Climate Change Canada and the Department of Finance Canada and apply to all federal departments and agencies.

Proponents do not apply to the IFFS framework and guidelines, but rather, government departments and agencies are responsible for applying the guidelines when considering applications for project funding that could be deemed an inefficient subsidy to the fossil fuel sector.

Subsidies to the fossil fuel sector are considered “inefficient” unless they meet one or more of the following criteria: subsidies that enable significant net greenhouse gas emissions reductions in Canada or internationally in alignment with article 6 of the Paris Agreement; subsidies that support clean energy, clean technology or renewable energy; subsidies that provide an essential energy service to a remote community; subsidies that provide short-term support for emergency response; subsidies that support indigenous economic participation in fossil fuel activities; subsidies that support abated production processes, or projects that have a credible plan to achieve net-zero emissions by 2030.

No centralized database exists to track government-wide decision-making; however, departments and agencies are required to document how an approved project meets one of the six criteria, in cases where the guidelines apply.

Question No.2322—

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

With regard to Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC): (a) has IRCC outsourced the processing or review of any case files to the private industry in the past five years; (b) if the answer to (a) is affirmative, (i) what is the total amount spent on such outsourcing, broken down by year, (ii) how many case files were outsourced, broken down by year; (c) what are the details of all contracts related to such outsourcing since 2019, including, for each, the (i) date, (ii) vendor, (iii) value or amount, (iv) number of files outsourced to the vendor, (v) manner in which the contract was awarded (i.e. sole-sourced or competitive bid); (d) what is the rationale for outsourcing such files; and (e) what specific security measures, if any, are in place to ensure that applicants whose files are outsourced have their information protected?

[Paul Chiang, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, IRCC does not contract out or outsource processing to the private industry. Therefore, IRCC does not have any information to provide for this question.

Question No.2323—

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

With regard to the Canada Housing Benefit, broken down by federal electoral district since the program's inception: (a) what is the total number of applications (i) received, (ii) approved; (b) what is the total dollar value of payments delivered to eligible applicants; (c) how many children, in total, have been helped by the program; and (d) how many seniors, in total, have been helped by the program?

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

Mr. Speaker, with regard to the Canada housing benefit, broken down by federal electoral district since the program's inception, CMHC and the Canada Revenue Agency 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 and relies on a provincial component for all Canada housing benefit applications. It was 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.

Any information regarding application statistics can be found on www.canada.ca/en/services/taxes/child-and-family-benefits/top-up-canada-housing-benefit/statistics.html

Question No.2325—

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills, ON]

With regard to the data security breach at Global Affairs Canada (GAC) which was reported around the end of January 2024: (a) how many users' information was impacted, in total and broken down by (i) GAC employees, (ii) government employees outside of GAC, (iii) the general public, (iv) diplomats from other countries; (b) on what date did GAC become aware of the data breach; (c) on what date were the impacted users informed of the breach; (d) if impacted users were not informed, why were they not informed; (e) for impacted users, what types of information were breached; (f) did the data breach only impact users who accessed the GAC-operated Secure Integrated Global Network (SIGNET) between December 30, 2023, and January 24, 2024, and, if not, what other users, time periods or networks were impacted; (g) what action, if any, did GAC take to prevent data security breaches in response to the December 2022 announcement by the United States Secret Service that entities working on behalf of the government of the People's Republic of China, including APT41, were hacking and conducting espionage; (h) is the actor(s) responsible for the data breach a state or non-state actor(s); and (i) what is the name of the actor(s) responsible for the data breach?

[Rob Oliphant, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, the following reflects a consolidated response approved on behalf of Global Affairs Canada ministers.

In response to parts (a) to (i) of the question, given its profile, Global Affairs Canada, or GAC, takes a proactive approach and employs a variety of security monitoring measures to detect and address potential risks. In collaboration with federal cybersecurity partners, GAC has a robust cybersecurity infrastructure and works closely with partners, including the United States and other close allies, to share information to address potential threats. The Canadian Centre for Cyber Security and the federal cybersecurity community address issues as quickly as possible.

In January 2024, Global Affairs Canada discovered malicious cyber-activity on its network, as well as indications of a data breach. While investigations are still ongoing, early results suggest that many Global Affairs Canada users, including employees, may have been affected. A first message to all Global Affairs Canada employees was sent on January 24, 2024. Potentially affected individual users were advised from January 27 to 28, 2024, following forensics work by GAC and cybersecurity partners. GAC employees have been contacted directly by the department’s privacy team to share initial results and mitigation measures.

No further details can be provided at this time with respect to specific cybersecurity incidents, due to operational security considerations.

Question No.2326—

[Louise Chabot, Bloc, Thérèse-De Blainville, QC]

With regard to Employment and Social Development Canada’s Skills for Success Program: Training and Tools stream for 2023: (a) with regard to the unallocated funds, how have they been used or how will they be used; (b) why have no Quebec organizations received any funds; (c) do the grants awarded allow for translation of the tools into French to ensure their accessibility; (d) why was the treatment of submitted proposals repeatedly postponed in the fall-winter 2022-2023 and spring-summer 2023 before being rejected last July; and (e) why is the CREMA proposal on a "waiting list" while $209 million have not yet been spent?

[Irek Kusmierczyk, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Employment]

Mr. Speaker, in response to part (a) of the question, throughout the skills for success, or SFS, program investment streams, there are now a total of 69 agreements in place, valued at approximately $233.1 million. All SFS program funds are currently notionally allocated.

In response to part (b) of the question, there are currently three Quebec-based organizations receiving funding as part of the budget 2021 investment in the SFS program.

The SFS program is primarily a national program, and the geographic locations of applicants were not used to assess proposals or to prioritize investments. Eligible applications were assessed based on the advertised parameters and priorities of the intake process, as outlined on the program’s funding page.

In response to part (c) of the question, to comply with the official language requirements, the SFS terms and conditions permit the translations of project materials into French or English when it has been determined during the project assessment and negotiations that the target clientele who are eligible to participate in a project to be carried out by the recipient is composed of members of both official language communities, and the anticipated demand for project assistance by the target clientele in both official languages determines the use of both official languages.

In response to part (d) of the question, the funding page for the SFS program’s training and tools stream stated that funding decisions for this call for proposals would be made by late fall 2022. However, due to the high volume of funding applications received, it took longer than expected for applications to be reviewed. Applicants were notified of the delays.

In response to part (e) of the question, all SFS program funds are notionally allocated. While the program cannot speak to specific applications, in cases where programs are oversubscribed, some applicants may receive notification that their proposal may receive further consideration should additional funding become available.

During the negotiation of contribution agreements, it is normal for the value of some projects to fluctuate as project activities and expenditures are finalized. It is therefore possible for funds to be released and made available to finance other eligible projects. However, the message to organizations regarding this possibility does not guarantee that sufficient funds will be released from this exercise to allow the funding of additional organizations.

Question No.2328—

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

With regard to Health Canada’s approval of mRNA vaccine products: (a) can Health Canada definitively exclude the possibility that undesirable effects to human cells and tissues (e.g. cell proliferation, toxicity) may be caused by conceivable mechanisms of action, such as (i) the creation of aberrant proteins by means of ribosomal frameshifting, (ii) the concomitant injection of residual DNA plasmid fragments, which, according to Speicher et al., are known to exceed by 188 to 509 fold the guideline limits for residual DNA that the United States Food and Drug Administration and the World Health Organization set at 10 ng/dose when measured by fluorometry, and the subsequent transfection of these fragments into the cell’s nucleus with the help of the lipid nanoparticles (LNPs), (iii) the concomitant injection of other contaminants such as double-stranded RNA or fragmented RNA, (iv) the presence of abnormally high levels of IgG4 antibodies due to repeated vaccination, (v) the concomitant injection of bacterial endotoxins previously detected in Pfizer and Moderna vials, which may also be transfected via LNPs, (vi) the potential for reverse transcriptase of mRNA into DNA, (vii) the presence of SV40 promoter/enhancer DNA as an additional contaminant that could transfect the cell and integrate into the genome, (viii) the LNP-facilitated entry of mRNA and spike protein across the blood-brain barrier, across the placenta, into breast milk, and into organs and tissues, particularly of the heart, bone marrow and brain; (b) when considering the mechanisms of action in (a), can Health Canada definitively exclude the possibility that any combination of two or more of these mechanisms may cause undesirable effects of cell proliferation or toxicity; (c) has Health Canada completed a risk-benefit assessment in relation to (i) each of these singular mechanisms of action, (ii) the combination of any of the mechanisms listed in (a); (d) if the answer to (c) is affirmative, what is the risk-benefit assessment; (e) if the answer to (c) is negative, why has Health Canada not completed a risk-benefit assessment; and (f) did Health Canada set new safety limits for levels of residual DNA in the presence of a lipid nanoparticle delivery system in an mRNA vaccine product?

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

Mr. Speaker, Health Canada initially authorized the Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 mRNA vaccine in December 2020 and subsequently has authorized updated versions, including the most recent vaccine targeting the XBB Omicron subvariant in late 2023: https://covid-vaccine.canada.ca. Each assessment included a determination that the vaccine met the department's stringent regulatory, safety, efficacy and quality requirements for use in Canada.

In response to part (a)(i) of the question, as a regulator, Health Canada sets quality standards and requirements for manufacturers to follow, including providing comprehensive and detailed information about the vaccine itself and about the manufacturing process. There are strict limits and controls to ensure the safety and effectiveness of the vaccine. The department authorizes a product only once the data has been reviewed and demonstrates that the product’s benefits outweigh its risks.

Prior to Health Canada authorization, the mRNA vaccines were tested in preclinical safety studies for general and reproductive toxicity, and no safety signals related to frame shifting were reported.

After authorization, Health Canada continues to monitor the safety of COVID-19 vaccines through surveillance and risk minimization measures, including requiring manufacturers to regularly submit safety reports and reports of adverse events following immunization, or AEFIs, and regularly assessing whether there is any new safety information that may affect the benefit-risk profile of the product. Should a safety issue be confirmed, Health Canada will take appropriate action, which may include communicating the risk to Canadians or changing the recommended use of the vaccine.

In response to part (a)(ii) of the question, as a regulator, Health Canada sets quality standards and requirements for manufacturers to follow, including providing comprehensive and detailed information about the vaccine itself and about the manufacturing process. There are strict limits and controls to ensure the safety and effectiveness of the vaccine. The department authorizes a product only once the data has been reviewed and demonstrates that the product’s benefits outweigh its risks.

The limit for residual DNA in biological drugs required by Health Canada for approval is not more than 10 ng/human dose. This is in line with the World Health Organization’s recommendation concerning residual DNA in biological drugs and is consistent with the quality limits of other international regulators.

After authorization, Health Canada continues to monitor the safety of COVID-19 vaccines through surveillance and risk minimization measures, including requiring manufacturers to regularly submit safety reports and reports of AEFIs, and regularly assessing whether there is any new safety information that may affect the benefit-risk profile of the product. Should a safety issue be confirmed, Health Canada will take appropriate action, which may include communicating the risk to Canadians or changing the recommended use of the vaccine.

In response to part (a)(iii), please see the responses to parts (a)(i) and (a)(ii).

In response to parts (a)(iv) and (v), please see the response to part (a)(i).

In response to part (a)(vi), please see the responses to parts (a)(i) and (a)(ii).

In response to part (a)(vii) of the question, as a regulator, Health Canada sets quality standards and requirements for manufacturers to follow, including providing comprehensive and detailed information about the vaccine itself and about the manufacturing process. There are strict limits and controls to ensure the safety and effectiveness of the vaccine. The department authorizes a product only once the data has been reviewed and demonstrates that the product’s benefits outweigh its risks.

The SV40 promoter/enhancer sequence was found to be a residual DNA fragment in the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID 19 vaccine. The fragment is inactive, has no functional role and was measured to be consistently below the limit required by Health Canada and other international regulators. Health Canada continues to monitor the COVID 19 vaccines to ensure that they continue to meet the highest standards for safety, effectiveness and quality, and that their benefits continue to outweigh any potential risks.

After authorization, Health Canada continues to monitor the safety of COVID-19 vaccines through surveillance and risk minimization measures, including requiring manufacturers to regularly submit safety reports and reports of AEFIs and regularly assessing whether there is any new safety information that may affect the benefit-risk profile of the product. Should a safety issue be confirmed, Health Canada will take appropriate action, which may include communicating the risk to Canadians or changing the recommended use of the vaccine.

For the response to part (a)(viii), please see the responses to parts (a)(i) and (a)(ii).

For the response to parts (b) to (e) of the question, please see the response to part (a)(i).

In response to part (f) of the question, the limit for residual DNA in biological drugs required by Health Canada for approval is consistent with the WHO recommended limit of not more than 10 ng/human dose. There are no proposed changes to this limit for the mRNA vaccines.

Question No.2329—

[Michelle Ferreri, Conservative, Peterborough—Kawartha, ON]

With regard to the Canada-wide Early Learning and Child Care program: (a) how much does it cost the government to administer the program annually, in total and broken down by province or territory; and (b) how many employees or full-time equivalents are assigned to work related to the administration of the program, in total and broken down by province or territory whose program's administration the employee is assigned to?