Debates of Sept. 15th, 2025

Question No.224—

[Maggie Chi, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, with regard to part (a) of the question, the federal health portfolio, including Health Canada, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency and the Public Health Agency of Canada, leads a whole-of-government approach to pandemic prevention, preparedness and response protocols. The health portfolio takes a whole-of-government approach to addressing One Health threats and reducing their potential wide-reaching impact, particularly managing diseases found in animals and other sources before and after human-to-human transmission occurs.

With regard to part (b), information on the One Health approach is available at https://www.canada.ca/en/public-health/services/emergency-preparedness-response/rapid-risk-assessments-public-health-professionals/one-health-approach-risk-assessment-executive-summary.html.

Regarding part (c), no bills have tabled or passed related to pandemic prevention, preparedness and response protocols, the One Health approach in Canada, or any other World Health Organization or United Nations international health or pandemic treaties or agreements. Legislation was not required for Canada to join the United Nations system, including the World Health Organization. If Canada were to sign any such treaties, it would follow all required legislative steps, including parliamentary ratification if required.

With regard to parts (d) and (e), while Public Health Agency of Canada staff carry out a wide range of duties related to zoonotic diseases, antimicrobial resistance, food safety, climate change and wildlife health to protect the health and safety of Canadians, the Public Health Agency has no current or planned dedicated staff for the One Health approach.

Regarding part (f), the Public Health Agency of Canada has no budget allocation dedicated to the One Health approach.

With regard to part (g), the health portfolio, including Health Canada, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency and the Public Health Agency of Canada, has no training programs for non-governmental professionals in One Health.

Question No.225—

[Dean Allison, Conservative, Niagara West, ON]

With regard to Health Canada’s review of the manufacturing data, quality control and safety of lipid nanoparticles in the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines including all versions of Moderna’s SpikeVax, Pfizer-BioNTech’s Comirnaty and the boosters, and Onpattro (patisaran): (a) was the purity of the starting materials for the lipids, such as residual halogenated solvents and elements, including metals, assessed for mutagenic risk in accordance with established norms and guidelines, and, if so, what were the results, and, if not, why not; (b) was the total amount of observed impurities assessed for mutagenic risk, and, if so, what were the results, and, if not, why not; (c) were any individual element impurities considered mutagenic; (d) if the answer to (c) is affirmative, was this assessed with respect to multiple doses and with respect to the nature of transfection of the lipid nanoparticles; (e) was any assessment of the lipid nanoparticle as a nanoparticle performed; (f) if the answer to (e) is affirmative, did this include an assessment of the polyethylene glycol moiety; (g) was an assessment of the risk of complement activation-related pseudoallergy due to the polyethylene glycol moiety performed, and, if so, what were the results, and, if not, why not; and (h) were any complement-related assays requested from the manufacturer, and, if not, why not?

[Maggie Chi, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, Health Canada exercises stringent regulatory oversight over all pharmaceutical and biologic drugs, including vaccines. Before a drug is authorized in Canada, Health Canada conducts a rigorous scientific review of its safety, efficacy and quality.

For the quality of the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines, Comirnaty and Spikevax, impurities in lipid nanoparticles, LNPs, are assessed according to guidelines from the International Council for Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Pharmaceuticals for Human Use, or ICH. These guidelines include ICH Q3C “Impurities: Guideline for Residual Solvents” and ICH Q3D “Guideline for Elemental Impurities”.

Assessment of the risks associated with potential and known impurities in the mRNA vaccines was performed using common industry software that is accepted as part of the ICH M7 guideline: “Assessment and Control of DNA Reactive (Mutagenic) Impurities in Pharmaceuticals to Limit Potential Carcinogenic Risk”.

Impurities from the lipid excipients were below the limits set in the ICH Q3D and ICH Q3C guidelines. All solvents assessed were classified as non-mutagenic. Assessment of elemental impurities concluded that levels were below the permitted daily exposure, PDE. The methodologies used by the manufacturer to assess mutagenic risk from solvents and elemental impurities and their conclusions were considered acceptable.

LNPs in the mRNA vaccines were characterized and controlled using a variety of tests. The polyethylene glycol, PEG, moiety is conjugated to the lipid excipient and was assessed as part of the lipid. Residual unconjugated PEG is considered a process-related impurity in the manufacturing process of the lipid excipient and must be present below established limits. The PEG moiety itself is also classified as non-mutagenic according to ICH M7 guidelines. Each lot of drug product is tested to ensure that it conforms with approved specifications. The control strategy for the LNPs was considered acceptable.

Non-clinical safety studies were performed for the novel lipid excipients. Complement-related assays were not requested from the manufacturer as there is no established assay that can be performed to assess hypersensitivity to PEG.

For Onpattro, impurities are assessed according to guidelines from the International Council for Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Pharmaceuticals for Human Use, ICH. These guidelines include ICH Q3C “Impurities: Guideline for Residual Solvents”, ICH Q3D “Guideline for Elemental Impurities” and the ICH M7 guideline: “Assessment and Control of DNA Reactive (Mutagenic) Impurities in Pharmaceuticals to Limit Potential Carcinogenic Risk”.

Impurities from the lipid excipients were below the limits set in the ICH Q3D and ICH Q3C guidelines. All solvents assessed were classified as non-mutagenic or unlikely to be present. LNPs in the drug product Onpattro were assessed using a pharmacologically inactive short-interfering RNA, or siRNA, encapsulated in the same lipid particle as the one with the active siRNA, patisiran. The LNP comprised two novel excipients which were fully characterized with a complete toxicology evaluation.

Question No.228—

[Chris d'Entremont, Conservative, Acadie—Annapolis, NS]

With regard to the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency and its funding allocations since January 1, 2020: (a) how much funding has been distributed by the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, broken down by federal riding and year; and (b) what projects received funding, broken down by federal riding, year, recipient organization, project description, and amount?

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada and Minister responsible for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency]

Mr. Speaker, with regard to the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency and its funding allocations from January 1, 2020, to June 18, 2025, the agency does not track this information by riding. Producing a comprehensive response would require manual collection and validation of information, which is not possible in the time allotted and could lead to the disclosure of incomplete and misleading information.

Information on the agency’s grants and contributions can be found on the Open Government Portal at the following link: https://search.open.canada.ca/grants/.

Question No.229—

[Dean Allison, Conservative, Niagara West, ON]

With regard to information arising from an access to information request from the Public Health Agency of Canada – A-2023-000165, which stated that the Chief Public Health Officer Dr. Theresa Tam and “quite a few” pandemic managers at the Department of Health, the Public Health Agency of Canada, the Department of Industry, the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development and the Department of National Defence were required to sign a secret oath promising never to divulge information that “may result in embarrassment”: (a) which specific individual or individuals initiated the requirement for staff to sign a confidentiality agreement; (b) which divisions of which departments did the individual or individuals in (a) work in; (c) who was asked to sign this confidentiality agreement and what positions did they hold in their respective departments; (d) which divisions of which departments did the individuals in (c) work in; (e) what were the details of the confidentiality agreement; (f) why did the government feel such a confidentiality agreement was necessary; (g) did the government conceal or attempt to conceal any information from the public and media that could result in embarrassment; (h) if the answer to (g) is affirmative, what was the specific information that the government concealed or attempted to conceal from the public and media that could result in embarrassment; (i) what specific criteria do Department of Health officials use to determine whether it's more important to not embarrass the government versus the requirement to be open and transparent with Canadians; (j) are the staff who signed this confidentiality agreement still under a legal obligation to meet the demands as outlined in the confidentiality agreement; (k) under what other circumstances are these types of confidentiality agreements required of bureaucratic staff; (l) how did this confidentiality agreement differ from the Values and Ethics Code for the Public Sector; (m) who specifically wrote the confidentiality agreement and which division and which department do they work in; and (n) who approved the requirements of the confidentiality agreement?

[Maggie Chi, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada is committed to transparency. Information that is not shared publicly is withheld only in compliance with applicable legislation. The access to information release package in question does not reference a “secret oath” in connection with the vaccine contracts, nor were confidentiality requirements themselves a secret. Section 54 of the Public Service Employment Act, PSEA, requires employees in the core public service to affirmation as a condition of employment that they will not, without due authority, disclose or make known any matter that comes to their knowledge by reason of such employment. Public servants are also subject to the Treasury Board Secretariat’s “Values and Ethics Code for the Public Sector”, the code of conduct applicable to their particular organization, and other statutory and policy obligations of confidentiality in accordance with the security clearance or status required of their position.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, Public Health Agency of Canada, PHAC, officials worked closely with Public Services and Procurement Canada, PSPC, and other departments to ensure vaccines were available for Canadians.

In the context of COVID-19 vaccine procurement, confidentiality agreements and/or non-disclosure agreements, NDAs, initially were required as a precautionary measure to reinforce the importance of protecting confidential business information that was shared during contract negotiation discussions. Subsequently, it was recognized that public servants’ existing obligations that are a condition of their employment were sufficient and an additional agreement was not needed. It is expected that public servants are to meet their obligations to maintain confidentiality of commercially sensitive information and to adhere to their organization’s standard procedures for reporting conflicts of interest. This is documented in the referenced access to information release package.

Employees who were asked to sign confidentiality agreements and/or NDAs included those who worked closely with PSPC on the procurement of COVID-19 vaccines, or required access to the agreements to support planning for subsequent distribution, management and administration of the vaccine. This approach mirrored industry practices and reflected the requirement to manage confidential business information by all signatories. Requests for signature of the confidentiality agreements and/or NDAs to support COVID-19 contract negotiations and discussions were overseen by PSPC.

Question No.234—

[Scott Aitchison, Conservative, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

With regard to the government's announcement in Budget 2024, in which it outlined its intention to amend the Food and Drugs Act to grant the Minister of Health the authority to "rely on information or decisions from select foreign regulatory authorities in specific instances to satisfy requirements in the Food and Drugs Act or its regulations", since the enactment of this new authority: (a) how many times has this authority been exercised; (b) which foreign regulatory authorities have been relied upon under this authority, including the details of each case; and (c) which therapeutic products, foods, medical devices or other regulated products were involved for each case in (a), including the nature of the reliance and how it contributed to meeting Canadian regulatory requirements?

[Maggie Chi, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Health has never exercised the authority granted in budget 2024 to put in place targeted exemptions from regulatory requirements.

If the authority were to be exercised, it would be done in situations where a situation requiring immediate action has been identified, such as improving access to needed health products that are not currently on the market in Canada, and where legislative preconditions have been met. Exemptions would still require that Canada’s high scientific, safety, and regulatory standards were met, and the development of a ministerial order for this purpose would be developed transparently and informed by public consultation.

Question No.236—

[Scott Aitchison, Conservative, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

With regard to the National Pharmacare Program: (a) what is the average cost since the program's inception, broken down by patient and year; (b) what is the projected average cost for each of the next five fiscal years, broken down by patient and year; (c) what is the total number of prescription drug claims submitted to date, including a breakdown by province; (d) what is the number of claims that have been denied, along with a breakdown of the reasons for denial; and (e) what is the total administrative cost of delivering the National Pharmacare Program since its inception, including payments to third-party administrators and technology platforms?

[Maggie Chi, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, in response to (a), (b), (c), and (d), provinces and territories have primary responsibility for delivering health care services, including the implementation and delivery of the national pharmacare program, and they are responsible for gathering the requested information. Recipient provinces and territories are required to provide annual reports that demonstrate how federal funding was used to increase existing public coverage for the prescription drugs and related products specified in the agreement.

More information on national pharmacare program agreements can be found at https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/corporate/transparency/health-agreements/national-pharmacare-bilateral-agreements.html.

In response to (e), Health Canada used only existing internal resources to manage national pharmacare bilateral agreements, and made no payments to third party administrators or technology platforms. Per section 4.8 of the bilateral national pharmacare program agreements, provincial and territorial governments could use a portion of their federal funding allocations to pay for administrative costs related to delivering the commitments in the agreement. Recipient provinces and territories are required to provide annual reports that demonstrate how federal funding was used in delivering the program.

Question No.238—

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

With regard to the government's electric vehicle battery manufacturing facility agreement with Volkswagen: (a) how much funding has been distributed to Volkswagen to date in relation to the agreement; (b) what were the dates and amounts of each funding instance; (c) what is the schedule for future funding under the agreement; (d) how have the developments related to the $370 billion funding commitment in the United States as part of the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act impacted this agreement, and what are the details of the specific changes that the government has made to this agreement following the developments associated with the Inflation Reduction Act; and (e) is the Parliamentary Budget Officer's 2023 report stating that the deal will cost the government $16.3 billion consistent with current governmental financial projections associated with this deal, and, if not, what numbers are different and how does the government explain the difference?

[Mélanie Joly, Liberal, Minister of Industry and Minister responsible for Canada Economic Development for Quebec Regions]

Mr. Speaker, in response to part (a), no funding has been provided to date. The company has a strategic innovation fund contribution agreement for up to $700 million in support. In addition, Canada and Ontario have committed to providing production-based support of up to $13.2 billion.

In response to part (b), no funding has been provided to date.

In response to part (c), once the PowerCo/Volkswagen plant is operational, production support funding will be disbursed on a quarterly basis, based on battery cells produced and sold.

Capital expenditure support funding from the strategic innovation fund will be disbursed on a quarterly basis, based on claimed eligible project expenses.

In response to part (d), Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada continues to monitor developments closely, including any changes to the advanced manufacturing production credit, AMPC, through the U.S. legislation “One Big Beautiful Bill.”

In response to part (e), the government announced up to $13.9 billion in support for the PowerCo electric vehicle battery manufacturing plant in St. Thomas, including $700 million in capital expenditure support through the strategic innovation fund, and up to $13.2 billion in production support to match the U.S. Inflation Reduction Act’s advanced manufacturing production credit, of which one-third is to be paid by Ontario.

The Parliamentary Budget Officer’s report is consistent with these financial commitments. There are some minor differences in methodology between the government’s analysis and the Parliamentary Budget Officer’s report. For example, in its calculation of the costs, the Parliamentary Budget Officer has included foregone tax revenue, which was not included in the government’s estimation.

Question No.240—

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

With regard to the extreme cold weather sleeping bag system, as a replacement for the general purpose sleeping bag system, which was contracted by Public Services and Procurement Canada: (a) as the extreme cold weather sleeping bag system's request for proposal closed on October 28, 2024, what was the result of the request for proposal; (b) what are the details of any resulting contracts, including, for each, (i) the amount, (ii) the vendor, (iii) the date and duration, (iv) the description of the goods or services provided, (v) whether the contract was sole-sourced or awarded through a competitive bidding process; (c) which companies were contracted for the general purpose sleeping bag system, including, for each contract, (i) the amount, (ii) the vendor, (iii) the date and duration, (iv) the description of the goods or services provided, (v) whether the contract was sole-sourced or awarded through a competitive bidding process; (d) in which country will the extreme cold weather sleeping bag system's products be manufactured; and (e) how many of these systems are contracted to be manufactured in total?

[Jenna Sudds, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Government Transformation]

Mr. Speaker, please note that the extreme cold weather sleeping bag system is not a replacement for the general purpose sleeping bag system; it is complementary. To better support operations in all weather conditions, the Canadian Armed Forces is expanding the thermal protection of the general purpose sleeping bag system with the addition of an alternative inner bag, the extreme cold sleeping bag, into its sleep system.

In response to (a), Public Services and Procurement Canada, on behalf of the Department of National Defence, received six bids from five bidders. Following the bid evaluation process, a contract was awarded to Fellfab Limited of Hamilton, Ontario, on June 4, 2025.

In response to (b), the details of the resulting contract are as follows. The amount is $1,782,008.30. The vendor is Fellfab Limited of Hamilton, Ontario. The date and duration are as follows: The contract was awarded on June 4, 2025, including optional quantities and special sizes to be ordered for up to 84 months from contract award. The description of the goods or services provided is as follows: extreme cold weather sleeping bag systems. The contract was awarded through a competitive bidding process.

In response to (c), Logistik Unicorp Incorporated was the only company contracted for the general purpose sleeping bag system with the following details: the amount of $34,824,728.23, current total estimated contract value; the vendor, Logistik Unicorp Incorporated of Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu, Quebec; the date and duration, contract awarded September 26, 2019, for a period of five years; the description of the goods or services provided, general purpose sleeping bag system; the contract was awarded through a competitive bidding process.

In response to (d), the extreme cold weather sleeping bag system's products will be manufactured in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.

In response to (e), the contract has a firm quantity of 1,000 units, with a possible additional optional quantity of 9,000 units and as-and-when requested special sizes in quantities of 20 units.

Question No.241—

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

With regard to Bill C-202, An Act to amend the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Act (supply management): (a) is it the government's position that this bill, upon receiving royal assent, will become a law of Canada; (b) if the answer to (a) is affirmative, is it the government's position that the law would bind His Majesty in right of Canada; (c) if the answer to (b) is negative, (i) why not, (ii) is this position backed by a legal opinion; and (d) if the answer to (c)(ii) is affirmative, what are the particulars of the legal opinion, including the (i) date it was given, (ii) person who approved it, (iii) person who requested it?

[Yasir Naqvi, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade and Parliamentary Secretary to the Secretary of State (International Development)]

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

With regard to Bill C-202, an act to amend the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Act regarding supply management, it is the government’s position that the bill, upon receiving royal assent, became a law of Canada. The government is fully aware of the importance of this law, and that it must abide by its requirements.

In processing parliamentary returns, the government applies the principles set out in the Access to Information Act and does not disclose information that is subject to solicitor-client privilege.

Question No.242—

[Ellis Ross, Conservative, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

With regard to Health Canada's exemption granted to British Columbia under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, which allows for adults to possess up to 2.5 grams of certain substances: has the government received a request from British Columbia to extend the exemption past the January 31, 2026 expiration date, and, if so, (i) what are the details of the request, (ii) does the government plan to approve British Columbia's extension request?

[Maggie Chi, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, Health Canada has not received any request from British Columbia to extend its requested exemption beyond the January 31, 2026, expiration date.

Question No.243—

[Ellis Ross, Conservative, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

With regard to national data on opioid-related harms, since January 2021, broken down by year and by province or territory: how many opioid-related (i) deaths, (ii) hospitalizations, (iii) emergency department visits, have occurred?

[Maggie Chi, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, national data on opioid data since January 2021 is available at https://health-infobase.canada.ca/substance-related-harms/opioids-stimulants/. Data broken down by year and by province or territory is available at https://health-infobase.canada.ca/substance-related-harms/opioids-stimulants/maps.html. Note that data may be withheld in provinces or territories with low numbers of cases in order to comply with confidentiality rules.

Question No.244—

[Éric Lefebvre, Conservative, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

With regard to the Housing Accelerator Fund: (a) how much of the allocated $900 million has been released to municipalities in the province of Quebec; (b) what is the municipality, the date and the amount of each disbursement; and (c) how many housing units, funded by the Housing Accelerator Fund, have been completed within the province of Quebec, broken down by (i) municipality, (ii) number of bedrooms, (iii) building type, (iv) year of completion?

[Jennifer McKelvie, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Housing and Infrastructure]

Mr. Speaker, in November 2023, Canada and Quebec announced an agreement to implement the housing accelerator fund in the province of Quebec. This agreement included a total federal contribution of $900 million, aimed at creating tens of thousands of housing units and implementing regulatory reforms in Quebec. A subsequent agreement was signed for an additional $92 million, bringing the total federal contribution to Quebec under the housing accelerator fund to $992 million. The contribution corresponds to nearly 23% of the total federal funding, the aim of which is to add at least 112,000 residential units over and above historical averages across Canada by 2028.

The Quebec government matched this investment with an additional $992 million, bringing the combined total to over $1.9 billion. This funding is set to directly create 8,000 social and affordable housing units, with 500 units specifically allocated for individuals who are homeless or at risk of homelessness. Canada's financial contribution, which is delivered by Quebec, supports the provincial initiatives to accelerate the construction of residential units to meet its housing needs.

Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation has no housing accelerator fund agreements with municipalities in Quebec. Federal funding of $992 million to Quebec over five years started in 2023-24. To date, Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation has advanced $721 million of the $992 million to the province through two payments.

Project selection, commitment and disbursements are the sole responsibility of the province. In choosing projects, the province has committed to selecting those that meet the objectives of the housing accelerator fund and the requirements of applicable Quebec programs and initiatives. To the extent possible, project selection takes into account regional distribution in conjunction with regional needs.

Question No.246—

[Éric Lefebvre, Conservative, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

With regard to the preparation of Budget 2025, broken down by month, since January 2025: (a) what is the cost incurred, broken down by government department; (b) what is the number of employee hours used; (c) what is the number of full-time equivalent employees who spent more than 75% of their time preparing the budget; and (d) what were the internal projected budget dates within the (i) Department of Finance, (ii) Office of the Prime Minister, (iii) Privy Council Office?

[François-Philippe Champagne, Liberal, Minister of Finance and National Revenue]

Mr. Speaker, the Department of Finance Canada has a broad mandate helping the Government of Canada develop and implement strong and sustainable economic, fiscal, tax, social, security, international and financial sector policies and programs.

Over the time period in question, from January 1, 2025, to June 18, 2025, the government, supported by the public service, was focused on responding to fast-changing and unjustified trade actions by the United States. The Department of Finance supported the government in the development of its tariff response plan and discussions with provinces and territories, U.S. counterparts, international partners, and industry stakeholders. The Department of Finance also played an important role in the planning and execution of the G7 leaders and finance ministers’ meetings and the finance minister’s participation in the G20 finance track process. This time period also saw the government deliver on major policy actions, including ceasing the application of the consumer carbon price; delivery of a middle-class tax cut; and GST relief for first-time homebuyers on new homes up to $1.5 million.

The number of employee hours used in preparation of budget 2025 and the number of full-time equivalent employees who spent more than 75% of their time preparing the budget are not tracked separately from these other activities. Given the department’s broad mandate and ongoing work in the areas mentioned above, this information is impossible to isolate. Although governments often face economic uncertainty, the current situation differs when it comes to scale, complexity, and immediacy of the risks, and the way they interact. Given the significance of these developments, the government committed to tabling a budget this fall that reflects the full economic and fiscal context and provides a stable, forward-looking economic plan.