Debates of June 19th, 2024

Carbon Tax

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I wonder if there would be unanimous consent for me to present the first 10 of my petitions today.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

The hon. member does not have unanimous consent.

Medical Assistance in Dying

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the first petition is in support of a very simple moral proposition, which is that it is always wrong to kill a child. Petitioners are presenting this in the context of proposals for extending euthanasia to infants. Petitioners are strongly opposed to that petition. They call on the House to reject any proposal, recognizing that it is always wrong to will the death of a child.

Freedom of Political Expression

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the next petition is in support of Bill C-257, a bill that would protect freedom of expression in Canada by adding political belief and activity as prohibited grounds of discrimination to the Canadian Human Rights Act.

Ukraine

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the next petition that I am tabling is in support of a private member's bill I have put forward on getting weapons to Ukraine. It calls on the government to immediately follow through on long-delayed promises regarding military support for Ukraine and to send any surplus military equipment to Ukraine on an urgent basis.

Government Priorities

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my final petition notes that, after eight years, it is clear that the Prime Minister is not worth the cost, the crime or the corruption. The failed Prime Minister and his failed NDP-Liberal government have increased the cost of everything and failed to take responsibility for their failures. Crime, chaos, drugs and disorder are filling our streets due to the failed policy of the Prime Minister.

Petitioners call on the government to axe the tax, build the homes, fix the budget and stop the crime. That is the petition. Let us bring it home.

Questions on the Order Paper

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

Mr. Speaker, the following questions on the Order Paper will be answered today: Questions Nos. 2651, 2652, 2654, 2658 to 2670, 2672, 2675, 2683, 2685 to 2687, 2690 to 2692, and 2697.

Question No.2651—

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

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 Order Paper question 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 Order Paper question 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?

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

Mr. Speaker, the health and safety of Canadians is Health Canada’s top priority, and the department exercises stringent regulatory oversight over vaccines.

Before the initial approval of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine, the department completed a rigorous scientific review of the product’s safety, efficacy and quality, including details on manufacturing processes and information on adverse events following immunization. An authorization was only issued once Health Canada confirmed the benefits of the vaccine outweighed the risks of its use. The summary basis of decision can be found at this link: https://covid-vaccine.canada.ca/info/summary-basis-decision-detailTwo.html?linkID=SBD00510.

During the review of the information submitted by the manufacturer, Health Canada became aware of the potential presence of residual DNA in the Pfizer-BioNTech mRNA vaccine preparation. However, the content of the residual DNA was below 10 nanograms/dose. The content of residual DNA was lower than the recommended limits established by the World Health Organization, WHO, in consultation with subject matter experts. Accordingly, the department did not request genotoxicity studies, as the residual DNA was considered a low risk.

Furthermore, the department reviews the manufacturing data for each vaccine lot that is released for use in Canada to ensure they meet their established specifications, including those for residual DNA. The amounts of residual DNA in Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine lots were reported to Health Canada, as well as to our international partner agencies: e.g., EMA and U.S. FDA. Both Health Canada and our international partners consider the test methods used by Pfizer-BioNTech for detecting that residual DNA to be scientifically sound and appropriate for their intended use. As well, the results from the residual DNA tests were consistent among different vaccine lots sold both in Canada and elsewhere and were also consistent with other manufacturing data provided in support of the release of each product lot.

With regard to the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 mRNA vaccine manufacturing process, an SV40 enhancer-promoter region was present in the DNA plasmid template, but has no functional role and is not upstream of any SV40 gene, and the DNA template is digested and filtered to remove from the mRNA vaccine. Health Canada cannot speculate on any intentions by Pfizer-BioNTech in regard to whether they removed the SV40 sequence when reporting the annotated plasmid. Please note that information requested on gene sequences, gene annotation and gene/plasmid map, received on November 16, 2020, as well as analytical techniques used by the manufacturer, are proprietary to Pfizer-BioNTech. However, Health Canada’s scientists reviewed this, and all of the other submitted information, and considered it within the risk assessment for their product. Any residual DNA fragments are considered as inactive, and an internal assessment of submissions by Pfizer-BioNTech found that they were consistently reported below the limit recommended by WHO.

Lastly, the lipid nanoparticle, LNP, component of the Pfizer-BioNTech mRNA vaccine preparation served as a delivery vehicle for the mRNA. Cells cannot efficiently internalize the mRNA in the absence of the LNP.

Question No.2652—

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

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?

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

Mr. Speaker, the health and safety of Canadians are Health Canada’s top priorities, and the department exercises stringent regulatory oversight over 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 pre-clinical and clinical studies, details on manufacturing processes, and information on adverse events following immunization. An authorization was only issued when the benefits of any of the COVID-19 vaccines outweighed the risks of their use, thereby allowing the use of “safe and effective” in describing the authorized vaccine preparations.

The COVID-19 vaccines and treatments portal, https://covid-vaccine.canada.ca/, contains the summary basis of decision for each of the authorized COVID-19 vaccines. Please note that biopharmaceutic studies and associated analytical methods are proprietary and cannot be disclosed. All COVID-19 vaccines authorized by Health Canada under the interim order met the requirements of section C.08.001(2) of the food and drug regulations (2)(g) and (2)(h) for safety and efficacy. Terms and conditions were imposed upon the authorization with respect to quality, clinical, labelling, and risk management plan requirements. This process has allowed Health Canada to assess information submitted by the manufacturer as it became available during the product life cycle to ensure that the benefits of the vaccines continued to outweigh the risks. Additional safety and effectiveness data generated post-approval continue to support Health Canada's original decision.

Lastly, the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines authorized by Health Canada met the requirements of section C.04.015 of the food and drug regulations. However, the lot evaluation group assigned to mRNA vaccines, as part of the lot release program and protocols of testing submitted by the manufacturers, is proprietary and cannot be disclosed.

Question No.2654—

[Lianne Rood, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

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?

[Lawrence MacAulay, Liberal, Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food]

Mr. Speaker, with regard to the Canadian Dairy Commission, in response to part (a), to date, 18 applications have been received.

In response to part (b), all applications are under review/pending completion of the assessment process.

In response to part (c), the assessment process is ongoing and no funds have been approved.

In response to part (d), the assessment process is ongoing and no funds have been approved.

Question No.2658—

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

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?

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

Mr. Speaker, the total expenditures incurred to produce the 2024 budget documents amount to $390,094.02. Please find a detailed breakdown below.

In response to part (i), the consulting costs were $0.00.

In response to part (ii), the publishing costs were $0.00.

In response to part (iii), the printing costs were $269,858.61.

In response to part (iv), the design costs were $180.00.

In response to part (v), the writing costs were $0.00.

In response to part (vi), the marketing costs were $0.00.

In response to part (vii), any other costs, the translation costs were $120,055.41.

Question No.2659—

[Rosemarie Falk, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

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?

[Lawrence MacAulay, Liberal, Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food]

Mr. Speaker, as part of its domestic and international greenhouse gas reporting requirements, Canada must prepare and publish emissions projections on an annual basis. AAFC works with Environment and Climate Change Canada to develop the emissions projections for the agriculture sector, which includes the projected impact of any new, current, or planned programming. Through the agricultural climate solutions – on-farm climate action fund, the sustainable Canadian agricultural partnership, and the $34.1 million proposed in budget 2023 to support the adoption of nitrogen management practices, AAFC has most recently estimated a 1.44 megatonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent, Mt CO2e, reduction in fertilizer emissions per year by 2030.

Although the 1.44 Mt CO2e estimate does not currently account for the projected impact of the agricultural climate solutions – living labs and agricultural clean technology program, both programs support the research, development, and adoption of practices and technologies that can reduce fertilizer emissions. In addition, some federally funded programs under the sustainable Canadian agricultural partnership, such as AgriScience and AgriInnovate, can support fertilizer-related projects along the innovation continuum. Because Canada’s emissions projections are updated annually, the estimated reduction in fertilizer emissions from all of AAFC’s current programming may be included as more research and data become available.

The 1.44 Mt CO2e estimate also does not account for industry-led or provincially led initiatives that may directly or indirectly reduce fertilizer emissions, including Fertilizer Canada’s 4R designation and certification, Farm Credit Canada’s 4R sustainability incentive program, and the Government of Ontario’s fertilizer accelerating solutions & technology challenge.

Question No.2660—

[Rosemarie Falk, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

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?

[Lawrence MacAulay, Liberal, Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food]

Mr. Speaker, AAFC officials are actively engaging with national and regional commodity associations, industry organizations, and academia on the development of a strategic approach for reaching the target through the fertilizer emissions reduction working group under the sustainable agriculture strategy advisory committee. The working group is focused on identifying opportunities to increase the voluntary adoption of beneficial management practices, address data and measurement issues, recognize innovative solutions, and expand outreach and extension activities.

The ongoing development and implementation of the sustainable agriculture strategy also presents additional opportunities for developing and strengthening partnerships and collaboration with the sector to address key agri-environmental issues, including fertilizer emissions.

Question No.2661—

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

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?

[Lawrence MacAulay, Liberal, Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food]

Mr. Speaker, AAFC is currently in the process of drafting the sustainable agriculture strategy, SAS. Climate change mitigation is one of the five priority areas covered by the SAS. The other four include adaptation, biodiversity, water, and soil health. The SAS will set a shared direction for collective action to improve environmental performance in the sector over the long term in order to advance the sustainability, competitiveness, and vitality of the agriculture sector.

Since January 2024, AAFC has been meeting monthly with the SAS advisory committee to receive input and advice on various components of the strategy, and AAFC has been developing components of a draft strategy document. Ongoing engagement has continued with representatives from across the agriculture sector, including producers, commodity organizations, non-governmental organizations, provincial and territorial partners, indigenous peoples, and others.

The strategy will include broad goals and measurable outcomes, with clear indicators to measure progress across the five priority areas. The SAS is expected to be released in 2024.

Question No.2662—

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

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?

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

Mr. Speaker, in response to part (a), figure 5.1 reports emissions from the national inventory report of greenhouse gas sources and sinks in Canada. Cropland emissions are determined using an internationally accepted method, which has been modified to reflect Canadian soils, climate, crops and management practices. It is further adapted based on empirical data collected from research studies across Canada. Included in the emissions from cropland are direct and indirect nitrous oxide from synthetic fertilizers, organic fertilizers, crop residue decomposition, cultivation of organic soils, mineralization of soil organic carbon, conservation tillage, irrigation and manure on pasture and rangeland. Additionally, the method estimates nitrous oxide and methane emissions from field burning of agricultural residues as well as carbon dioxide emissions from liming and urea fertilizer application.

In response to part (b), the national inventory report primarily uses survey data provided by Statistics Canada from the census of agriculture, as well as other annual surveys that describe the distribution, yield and acreage of crops across Canada, as well as data from the Statistics Canada fertilizer shipments survey that describes the amount of fertilizer sold. Additionally, the inventory uses surveys on fertilizer use and expert opinion to inform the method.

In response to part (c), figure 5.1 describes the emissions as of 2021. The national inventory tracks annual emissions, starting in 1990. The latest data point now available is 2022, released in early May.

Question No.2663—

[Warren Steinley, Conservative, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

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?