Mr. Speaker, petitioners in my riding want to remind the government that it pledged $5 billion in the 2021 fall economic statement to help British Columbia recover from unprecedented disasters. To date, only 40% of that funding has been delivered. On behalf of petitioners, I will remind the House that the port of Vancouver was cut off from the rest of Canada. Every major road connecting British Columbia to the rest of Canada was cut off. There were hundreds of thousands of acres of burnt forests. The petitioners are calling upon the government to deliver the funds that were promised in the fall economic statement to help British Columbia properly recover.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to present a petition in opposition to the Liberals' capital gains tax hike. The petitioners note that this capital gains tax hike would strain health care resources, limit access to affordable housing options, exacerbate financial challenges for farmers and compromise retirement savings for Canadians. Accordingly, the petitioners call on the Minister of Finance to scrap this punitive tax hike on doctors, home builders, small businesses, farmers and the retirement savings of Canadians.

Mr. Speaker, today I am proud to present a petition on behalf of thousands of Canadians who call on the government to stop its divisive anti-energy, anti-private sector, top-down Bill C-50 just-transition agenda, which would cause fuel and power shortages, and even more energy poverty, while hurting Canada's standard of living. The NDP-Liberal's so-called just transition would hike the cost of living in urban and rural Canada. It would kill 170,000 Canadian oil and gas jobs, displace 450,000 direct and indirect jobs and threaten the jobs of 2.7 million Canadians across all provinces in energy, manufacturing, construction, transportation and agriculture. It would especially harm remote, rural, indigenous and resource-based communities, provinces and regions; blue-collar and lower-income workers; and indigenous and diverse Canadians, who will face higher job disruptions and more challenges finding new opportunities because they work in Canada's oil and gas sector at a much higher rate than in other sectors. The NDP-Liberal agenda to phase out Canadian oil and gas compromises Canadian energy and national security. Therefore, Canadians across seven provinces and two territories call on the government to stop its unjust transition and to value private sector-led energy transformation through technology, not taxes, instead of through government-centred plans and subsidies, to bring home Canadian energy jobs, technology and investment, which would benefit all Canadians in every city, town and region.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate this opportunity to present a petition on behalf of Katarina Gavrilyuk, formerly of Kyiv, Ukraine, and now residing in St. John's, Newfoundland and Labrador. Nearly 1,000 people have signed her petition. The petition calls on the Prime Minister to live up to the promise he made on January 10, 2023, to deliver the national advanced surface-to-air missile system to Ukraine. I have never met this individual. I reached out and asked why she sought me out to present her petition. Ms. Gavrilyuk sent me a message, saying, “Firstly, your party has been a steadfast supporter of Ukraine, consistently advocating for sanctions against Russia and delivering crucial military aid. This strong stance aligns perfectly with our goals at Assistance Ukraine.” I am very happy to be able to help Assistance Ukraine and present Ms. Gavrilyuk's petition.

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to present a petition on behalf of constituents. I rise for the 43rd time on behalf of the people of Swan River, Manitoba, to present a petition on the rising rate of crime. The community of Swan River is overwhelmed with alarming levels of crime because of the Liberal government's soft-on-crime laws, such as Bill C-5 and Bill C-75. Jail has become a revolving door for repeat offenders, as Bill C-75 allows violent offenders to be in jail in the morning and then back on the street the same day. Bill C-5 allows criminals to serve their sentences from home. The people of Swan River are calling for jail, not bail, for repeat violent offenders. The people of Swan River demand that the Liberal government repeal its soft-on-crime policies, which directly threaten their livelihoods and their community. I support the good people of Swan River.

As an experienced member, the hon. member knows that we are not supposed to indicate whether we support petitions, but I understand that. The hon. member for Simcoe North.

Mr. Speaker, I have one petition to table today. It is on behalf of residents who are upset with Parks Canada's decision to abandon the replacement of the Boundary Road swing bridge, which had been in place since 1902. The Boundary Road swing bridge provides an essential route of transportation that residents of Bolsover use on a regular basis. It is also more efficient for first responders and is better for the environment. Parks Canada once promised to replace the bridge; it took the bridge out and has now abandoned the project. The petitioners are requesting that the government immediately reinstate the heritage asset listing for the Boundary Road swing bridge and resume the repair of this bridge immediately.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to present a petition signed by over 100 persons, calling for the elimination of the Liberal carbon tax on home heating. When the Liberals provided the carbon tax relief to Canadians living in areas where their polling numbers were dropping, they showed their true colours. It is clear that the Liberals believed in two types of Canadians: some who get rewarded for voting for them and others who must pay for the Liberals' costly policies. The reality is the carbon tax is impacting all Canadians, contributing to higher prices and making life less affordable for everyone; not just on home heating, but in other ways as well. In Westman, with the cost of food soaring, Samaritan House food bank organizers saw almost a 50% increase in the number of hampers they gave out, reaching a total of 36,000. Skyrocketing fuel costs are making it more difficult for those who live long distances from a grocery store or medical services. Finally, I have presented several petitions representing hundreds of Westman residents who are fed up with the high cost of living. It is time to axe the tax so Westman residents can afford to buy food, fuel up and heat their homes.

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 hon. member does not have unanimous consent.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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? 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? 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? 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? 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? 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? 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? 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? 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? With regard to Bill S-14, An Act to amend the Canada National Parks Act, the Canada National Marine Conservation Areas Act, the Rouge National Urban Park Act, and the National Parks of Canada Fishing Regulations: did any government department or agency do any consultations related to the proposed measures in the bill, and, if so, (i) who were the groups and people that were consulted, (ii) how much money was spent on the consultation process, (iii) what were the results or recommendations of the consultations, (iv) when were the consultations conducted, (v) how were the consultations conducted? With regard to Health Canada's (HC) review into the presence of SV40 and other DNA elements in the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine: (a) what were HC’s concerns regarding "SV40 enhancer-promoter sequence and other non-essential sequences in Pfizer's plasmid for their COVID-19 vaccines" as noted in email correspondences between HC, European Medicines Agency (EMA) and the Food and Drug Administration officials in August 2023 prior to an ad-hoc Cluster meeting held on August 24, 2023; (b) what did HC ask of Pfizer to mitigate the concerns in (a), and what was Pfizer's response; (c) did HC's experts review Kevin McKernan's et al. study entitled “Sequencing of bivalent Moderna and Pfizer mRNA Vaccines reveals Nanogram to Microgram Quantities of Expression Vector dsDNA per Dose”; (d) if the answer to (c) is affirmative, (i) what were HC's summary conclusions, (ii) how did HC respond to those conclusions; (e) is HC still of the position that "there is no peer-reviewed scientific literature suggesting that the SV40 promoter-enhancer itself or the other non-functional elements pose a risk to human health"; (f) if the answer to (e) is negative, what key peer-reviewed scientific literature did HC consider noteworthy; (g) is HC aware of the ability of the SV40 promoter-enhancer to bind to P53 as demonstrated by Drayman et al.; (h) if the answer to (g) is affirmative, (i) was the risk communicated to Pfizer, (ii) what was Pfizer's response; (i) if the answer to (g) is negative, will HC perform a risk analysis to human health; (j) is HC aware of the ability of the SV40 enhancer to act as a nuclear targeting sequence as demonstrated by Dean DA, Dean BS, Muller S, Smith LC. in their study entitled “Sequence Requirements for Plasmid Nuclear Import”; (k) if the answer to (j) is affirmative, was the risk communicated to Pfizer and a response requested; (I) if the answer to (j) is negative, will HC perform an independent risk analysis to human health; (m) if Pfizer's vaccine did not contain unsafe or unexpected plasmid sequences, such as SV40 promoter-enhancer, then why, on August 29, 2023, did Michael Wall state in an email to Tong Wu, "Health Canada will continue to work with international regulatory partners to achieve harmonisation regarding removal of these sequence elements from the plasmid for future strain changes"; (n) what are the "sequence elements" to which Michael Wall was referring; (o) regarding an email, on October 12, 2023, from an EMA colleague to Dr. Dean Smith at HC, which stated "We are going to discuss the matter of SV40 with Pfizer-BioNtech as well as these alleged high level of DNA in vaccines coming from these external parties. Have you taken any action? What would be your perspective?", (i) what action was taken or will be taken to address the "alleged high level of DNA" referenced in the email, (ii) has any action been taken to date, and, if so, what; (p) has HC informed (i) the Public Health Agency of Canada, (ii) Dr. Howard Njoo, (iii) Dr. Theresa Tam, (iv) Dr. Supriya Sharma, (v) the National Advisory Committee on Immunization, (vi) any or all of the provincial or territorial Chief Medical Officers, of the presence of the SV40 enhancer-promoter and DNA fragments; (q) if the answers to (p)(i) to (p)(vi) are affirmative, what were their individual responses; (r) if the answers to (p)(i) to (p)(vi) are negative, why or why not; (s) what risk assessment did HC perform to determine that SV40 promoter-enhancer is safe in an mRNA vaccine within the unique LNP delivery system; (t) what other Canadian vaccines contain SV40 promoter-enhancer sequence; and (u) what is HC's policy about SV40 promoter-enhancer being in any vaccine product? With regard to the government's appointment of Catherine Blewett to be Secretary of the Treasury Board, effective February 6, 2024: (a) since February 6, 2024, broken down by month, how many days did the Secretary work in person at the Treasury Board Secretariat's main office at 90 Elgin Street in Ottawa; and (b) is the Secretary exempt from the government's requirement that employees are to work in the office for at least two days per week? With regard to Exhibit 5.8 of the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development's report entitled "Agriculture and Climate Change Mitigation-Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada" and the performance targets related to climate change mitigation in place for the Agricultural Clean Technology program: (a) what were the 193 new technologies adopted based on 141 performance reports; (b) what did the performance reports say about the adoption of these technologies; and (c) what were the 352 approved projects based on 141 performance reports? With regard to Health Canada's (HC) signing of the contract with Pfizer on October 26, 2020, and the subsequent release of the Pfizer mRNA COVID-19 vaccine to the Canadian public: (a) was HC aware of a presentation made to the Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee on October 22, 2020, where Dr. Steve Anderson at the US Food and Drug Administration's Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, presented "Plans for Monitoring COVID-19 Vaccine Safety and Effectiveness"; (b) if the answer to (a) is affirmative, did HC review the presentation deck, specifically slide #16, which identified a working list of 22 "possible adverse event outcomes", including acute myocardial infarction, stroke, myocarditis, pericarditis and death; (c) if the answer to (a) is negative, at what point did HC become aware of this presentation material or these serious adverse events of special interest; (d) once HC was in possession of this information, where and when did HC publish this list of 22 "possible adverse event outcomes" for the purpose of informing (i) the general public, (ii) medical physicians and hospitals, (iii) the media; (e) how did HC plan to independently and actively monitor these 22 "possible adverse event outcomes"; (f) did the initial Pfizer monograph posted on HC's website on December 9, 2020, and the ones posted thereafter identify any of these 22 "possible adverse event outcomes"; (g) when Pfizer vaccines were first being administered in early 2021, did HC require the sponsor to include a package insert in each mRNA vaccine vial containing a fully printed monograph of the product's ingredients and side effects including the identified 22 "possible adverse event outcomes" for both the consumer and the health professional to ensure full, informed consent; (h) if the answer to (g) is negative, (i) why was this not required, (ii) how was full, informed consent achieved at the time of vaccination; (i) did HC plan to actively monitor and publish the 1,291 "serious adverse events (SAEs) of special interest" which were contained in the Appendix of Pfizer's report of April 30, 2021, entitled "5.3.6 CUMULATIVE ANALYSIS OF POST-AUTHORIZATION ADVERSE EVENT REPORTS OF PF-07302048 (BNT162B2) RECEIVED THROUGH 28-FEB-2021" to ensure medical awareness of these potential SAEs; (j) if the answer to (i) is affirmative, (i) how were the SAEs monitored, (ii) what information was gathered; and (k) if the answer to (i) is negative, why are the 1,291 SAEs of special interest being monitored by the US Food and Drug Administration and not by HC? With regard to the post-market surveillance used by Health Canada (HC) to monitor for safety concerns regarding the novel COVID-19 vaccine products: (a) have HC, the Public Health Agency of Canada (PHAC), Statistics Canada or any other federal agency or entity, department, or third-party agency used databases such as the Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences, the Ontario Health Data Platform or any other databases that collect real­time data to determine an individual's date of medical diagnoses, including death; (b) if the answer to (a) is affirmative, what are the anonymized individual results for the following new onset diagnoses, from December 1, 2020, to the present date, cross referenced with the date of receipt of COVID- 19 vaccine, the age by 5-year increments, the gender, and the province or territory of residence, (i) cerebral infraction, (ii) cerebral hemorrhage, (iii) sudden infant death syndrome, (iv) seizure, (v) acute myocarditis, (vi) pericarditis, (vii) transverse myelitis, (viii) miscarriage, (ix) Bell's palsy, (x) pancreatic cancer, (xi) esophageal cancer, (xii) anaphylaxis, (xiii) myocardial infraction, (xiv) breast cancer, (xv) pulmonary embolism, (xvi) deep vein thrombosis, (xvii) thrombocytopenia, (xviii) pulmonary hypertension (xix) lymphoma, (xx) ruptured aortic aneurysm, (xxi) cellulitis, (xxii) Guillain Barre syndrome, (xxiii) stillbirth, (xxiv) encephalopathy due to vaccination, (xxv) encephalopathy, (xxvi) sudden death, (xxvii) preeclampsia, (xxviii) premature birth, (xxix) multiple sclerosis, (xxx) hysterectomy, (xxxi) vasculitis; (c) what are the quarterly incidence rates of the diagnoses in (b) categorized by (i) age with 5-year increments, (ii) gender, (iii) province or territory of residence from January 1, 2014, to November 30, 2020; (d) if the answer to (a) is negative, what are the quarterly incidence rates of the diagnosis in (b) from December 1, 2020, to the present day, categorized by (i) age with 5-year increments, (ii) gender, (iii) province or territory of residence; (e) if the answer to (a) is affirmative, has this data been used to compare rates of medical diagnosis between never COVID-19 vaccinated individuals and others based on the number of COVID-19 injections received; (f) if the answer to (a) is affirmative, has this data been used to determine the length of time between receipt of a COVID-19 vaccine and the medical diagnosis or death, and, if so, what are the ranges of time; (g) if the answer to (a) is affirmative, will the raw data be released to independent researchers; (h) if the answer to (a) is negative, will the government make the raw anonymized data public; (i) if the answer to (a) is negative, what plans are either in place or planned to complete such an analysis in order to validate adverse event reporting systems that may be outdated for the COVID-19 vaccine products; (j) have there been any communications from or between HC, the PHAC, Statistics Canada, or any other federal agencies or their representatives about the Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences, the Ontario Health Data Platform, or any other similar database sources that capture receipt of COVID-19 vaccine(s) or booster(s) and clinical outcomes to monitor for safety signals; (k) if the answer to (j) is affirmative, which government agencies or out-sourced third parties were involved, and, for each, (i) what are the communications, (ii) who directed these communications, (iii) what were the dates of these communications, (iv) what was included in these communications, (v) what were the conclusions of these communications? With respect to Health Canada's (HC) review into the presence of SV40 and other DNA elements in the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine: (a) in July 2023, what was the basis for an Issue Analysis Summary (IAS) for the SV40 promoter agreed to by Drs Co Pham, Tong Wu and Michael Wall; (b) in July 2023, what was the rationale for HC to submit #1 Clarifax request to Pfizer and (i) what was the outcome of this request, (ii) did the response from the sponsor to #1 Quality Clarifax address all of HC's questions and concerns, and, if negative, what was missing, (iii) did Pfizer provide a complete justification for the SV40 sequences, (iv) did Pfizer provide an updated fully annotated table of functional elements of the plasmid, (v) did Pfizer include non-functional elements of the plasmid in the annotated table specifically addressing any unexpected open reading frames and other sequence elements, (vi) if the answer to (iii), (iv) and (v) is affirmative, what were the results, (vii) if the answer to (iii), (iv) and (v) is negative, what was HC's response; (c) with respect to the quantitative assay used to measure the residual DNA in order to confirm the presence of the SV40 promoter-enhancer, did HC confirm with Pfizer (i) the amplicon size used, (ii) the appropriateness of the primers used; (d) if the answer to (c) is affirmative, what was Pfizer's response; (e) if the answer to (c) is negative, has HC independently verified the total amounts of residual DNA, the appropriateness of the primers, and the amplicon size used by Pfizer to measure the residual DNA in the XBB.1.5 vials; (f) with respect to Pfizer's response in #1, #2 and #3 Quality Clarifaxes, did Pfizer provide the requested information on the fragment size analysis by December 1, 2023; (g) if the answer to (f) is affirmative, what were the results; (h) if the answer to (f) is negative, what was HC's response; (i) concerning the residual plasmid DNA in the drug substance, (i) did Pfizer provide the requested information on the characterization of residual circular DNA plasmid by December 1, 2023, (ii) did Pfizer provide the requested information on the risk of replication in bacterial cells by December 1, 2023, (iii) did HC at any time request information on the risk of replication in mammalian cells; (j) if the answer to (i)(i), (i)(ii) and (i)(iii) is affirmative, what were the results; (k) if the answer to (i)(i), (i)(ii), and (i)(iii) is negative, what was HC's response; (I) did HC request that Pfizer repeat the analyses for fragment size distribution and residual DNA for any of Pfizer COVID-19 vaccines (i.e., original or bivalent); (m) if the answer to (l) is affirmative, what were the findings; (n) if the answer to (l) is negative, why not; (o) did HC independently verify the quantity of residual DNA, the size distribution and the presence of SV40 sequences in the XBB.1.5. vaccine, or any other COVID-19 vaccine submitted by Pfizer for review; (p) at any time, did Pfizer ever suggest that the regulatory sequence elements in question were functional with respect to the manufacturing process, and, if so, what was the function; (q) at any time, did Plizer ever suggest that regulatory sequence elements in question were functional following inoculation into humans; and (r) if the answer to (p) is affirmative, what and when did Pfizer inform HC? With respect to Canada’s Vaccine Injury Support Program (VISP): (a) how many claims have been filed to the program from December 8, 2020, to present day, broken down by age group; (b) how many of those claims have been approved, broken down by age group; (c) of the approved claims, what have been the diagnoses and their frequencies, broken down by age group, date approved, and the corresponding COVID-19 vaccines that were administered; (d) of the approved claims, what are the percentages of Canadians who received (i) the AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine, (ii) the J&J COVID-19 vaccine, (iii) any COVID-19 vaccine produced by Pfizer-BioNTech, (iv) any COVID-19 vaccine produced by Moderna, (v) a combination of COVID-19 vaccines; (e) how many persons have received compensation to date through the VISP; (f) what is the total compensation to date given to vaccine-injured Canadians; (g) what is the age of the youngest person who received funding support approval through the VISP, and their associated diagnosis; (h) for all death claims, (i) what is the total number of death claims that have been filed to VISP, (ii) of the total, what have been the underlying causes of death, aside from the vaccine and their frequencies, (iii) how many filed death claims have been approved by the VISP and their corresponding diagnosis and vaccine status; (i) did the VISP require autopsies prior to approving a death claim; (j) if the answer to (i) is affirmative, what immunohistochemistry requirements does the VISP specify for these autopsies; (k) when denied, how many persons have appealed their claim and how many have been successful; (l) regarding the determination of causality of the adverse event in relation to a COVID-19 vaccine, (i) what is the standard criteria, (ii) does the Medical Review Board take into consideration the Bradford Hill criteria; (m) what are the professional qualifications of each member on the Medical Review Board; and (n) who are the professionals on the Medical Review Board? With regard to the government’s announcement on August 12, 2021 to invest $1.44 billion into Telesat’s advanced low Earth orbit (LEO) satellite constellation, Telesat Lightspeed: (a) what are the details of government purchases or sales of Telesat equity or shares since the announcement, including, for each, the (i) date, (ii) total price or amount, (iii) type of transaction (bought or sold), (iv) number of shares or percentage of equity, (v) share price, if applicable; and (b) what is the government’s current equity stake in Telesat in terms of value, percentage of equity, and number of shares? With regard to the recently announced emissions cap on Canada's oil and gas sector: (a) what assessments has the Government of Canada made regarding the economic impact on Gross Domestic Product and Export amounts, by dollar, for Canada; (b) has the government analyzed and reviewed the potential impact to Canadian firms that export energy products, and, if so, what are the details; (c) has the government considered the potential economic fallout in terms of job losses across the energy sector, at the provincial and territorial level, and, if so, what were the findings; (d) prior to the announcement of the emissions cap, did the government engage in any public relations or briefings with non-government organizations (NGO), the United Nations, and any sub-directorates of the United Nations at the ministerial level, and, if so, what was the nature of those discussions and the result of those discussions; (e) did the government procure any NGO or outside-of-government entities or actors to raise the subject within the Canadian media sphere, and, if so, who was involved and how much money was spent on these endeavors; and (f) what are the financial and contractual details of all memorandums and briefing notes, scope documents and economic impact analysis about the emissions cap that were sent to, or received by, the Minister of Export Promotion, International Trade and Economic Development, the Minister of the Environment and Climate Change, and the Minister of Finance, as well as any relevant ministerial offices and other involved ministers, deputy ministers, assistant deputy ministers regarding the emissions cap policy file, from 2016 to 2024? With regard to the Treasury Board Secretariat (TBS) hybrid workforce model for the federal public service: (a) has the TBS ever sought the opinion of the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada regarding the concern for and risk of privacy and data breaches of sensitive and confidential information of Canadian citizens that may be caused with malicious intent such as a cyberattack, accident, or negligence, and, if so, when was the opinion sought and what was the opinion; and (b) is the TBS aware of any privacy and data breaches that have occurred with federal workers operating off-site since March 16, 2020, as a result of working from home on unsecured networks, devices, software, or hardware, and, if so, what are the details of each breach including for each the (i) date, (ii) department or agency involved, (iii) summary of what occurred, (iv) number of individuals whose information was impacted, (v) type of information breached, (vi) length of time until the breach was resolved, (vii) details on if and how those whose information was breached were notified, (viii) date on which the Privacy Commissioner was notified, if applicable? With regard to the Known Traveller Digital Identity (KTDI) project announced by the government in January 2018 and the successor pilot on Digital Travel Credentials (DTCs): (a) what is the current status of both projects; (b) why was the decision made to not resume the KTDI; (c) how was the data, including personal data, that was obtained through the KTDI used; (d) was the data, including personal data, that was obtained through the KTDI retained, and, if so, by whom, including the country, territory, organization, and company details, including (i) which types of data were retained, (ii) where is the data stored; (e) what is the nature of the government's involvement, including its agencies, in the new DTC project; (f) what is the World Economic Forum’s involvement in the new project, if any; (g) who are the project partners; (h) what is the end date of the DTC project; (i) how many Canadian travellers opted into the project to date; (j) for travellers who have been participating in the project, what type of data was shared with (i) the government, (ii) third parties; (k) what third parties received the data in (j)(ii); (l) what specific technologies is the government testing, and what are the parameters around that testing; (m) what (i) benefits of, (ii) problems with, the technologies have been identified to date; and (n) what are the total government expenditures related to the KTDI and DTC projects since 2018, broken down by type of expenditure? With regard to government information on weather modification activities in Canada since 2015: (a) what weather modification activities is the government aware have taken place, including, but not limited to, cloud seeding or modification, hail suppression, fog dissipation, precipitation modification, lightning modification, hurricane seeding; (b) what are the (i) start and end dates of the activities in (a), (ii) stated objectives, (iii) geographic areas affected; (c) what techniques, chemicals and equipment are involved in each of the known weather modification activities; (d) is the government aware of any unlawful or disputed weather modification activities in Canada, and, if so, what are the details including the dates and summaries of each activity; (e) what, if any, government support or funding is provided to any of the activities in (a); (f) which government departments or agencies are involved in activities in (e), and what are the program objectives and research areas; (g) which, if any, international entities are involved in any of the activities; and (h) what outcomes and impacts have been observed by these activities and the methods and chemicals employed, including impacts on the environment, storm severity, and any other impacts? With regard to Canada’s participation in the World Economic Forum Annual Meeting in Davos, Switzerland, from January 15 to 19, 2024: (a) how many individuals were part of Canada’s delegation; (b) who were the members of the delegation, including, for each, their (i) name, (ii) title, (iii) role; (c) what are the details of all meetings held in Davos involving the Deputy Prime Minister, including, for each, the (i) date, (ii) names and titles of the attendees, (iii) purpose of the meeting, (iv) agenda items, (v) summary of what occurred at the meeting, including any agreements made; (d) what are the details of all meetings held in Davos involving members of the Canadian delegation other than the Deputy Prime Minister, including, for each, the (i) date, (ii) names and titles of the attendees, (iii) purpose of the meeting, (iv) agenda items, (v) summary of what occurred at the meeting, including anything that was agreed to; (e) what are the details, including the summary of terms, of any agreements entered into during the forum; (f) what are the details of all follow-up action taken by the government as a result of what happened at the forum; (g) what are the details of all memoranda or briefing notes prepared to support Canada’s delegation to the forum, including, for each, the (i) date, (ii) sender, (iii) recipient, (iv) title, (v) subject matter, (vi) summary of contents, (vii) file number; and (h) what was the total cost to the taxpayer, broken down by category of expense? With regard to the Canada Infrastructure Bank's (CIB) investment in the Avenue Living residential retrofits: (a) what is the summary of the terms of the project agreement with Avenue Living; (b) which properties are undergoing retrofits financed by the CIB; (c) at which properties is the CIB aware of significant rent increases since the financial close of the agreement; (d) how much of the investment has been disbursed to date and how has that financing been disbursed; (e) what is the current status of each of the retrofit projects at Avenue Living properties; (f) what measures did the CIB take when the investment agreement was made to ensure the investment would not be used as a rationale to increase rent; (g) if the answer to (f) is none, why were no measures taken; (h) what, if any, changes to the agreement will the CIB make in light of the rent increases at some properties; and (i) what changes is the CIB implementing to ensure its financing of retrofits do not result in rent increases at rental properties? With regard to Canada Revenu Agency registered charities: (a) which charities that had Israeli nationals as agents or intermediaries had their status revoked due to a failed audit between 2017 and 2023; (b) which charities that had Israeli nationals as agents or intermediaries failed audits between 2017 and 2023 and did not have their status revoked; (c) what are the internal rules, regulations, and protocols around revocation of charity status with regard to both domestic and international recipients; and (d) what are the CRA’s risk assessment tools, and the risk matrix surrounding charities with international intermediaries? With regard to defence procurement contracts since 2015: what have been the industrial and technological benefits, broken down by province and territory?

Mr. Speaker, if the government's responses to Questions Nos. 2653, 2655 to 2657, 2671, 2673, 2674, 2676 to 2682, 2684, 2688, 2689, 2693 to 2696, 2698, and 2699, could be made orders for return, these returns would be tabled in an electronic format immediately. The Speaker: Is that agreed? Some hon. members: Agreed.

With regard to Report 5 (2024) of the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development to the Parliament of Canada: (a) how much has the Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food spent in the past five years on developing a climate change mitigation strategy; (b) how many employees were or are assigned to work on the strategy; and (c) how was the money spent, broken down by initiative? With regard to Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) and the temporary public policy creating permanent resident pathways for Hong Kong residents since 2021, broken down by year: (a) how many individuals of Hong Kong origin have immigrated to Canada under the permanent residency program, broken down by (i) economic class migration, (ii) the family reunification program, (iii) the refugees and protected persons class, (iv) the "humanitarian and other" class, broken down by individualized stream; (b) how many individuals of Hong Kong origin have applied for permanent residency on "humanitarian and compassionate grounds" separately from the temporary public policy permanent residency pathways since 2021; (c) with regard to the temporary public policy, what is the breakdown of the application numbers since 2021 for (i) Stream A, (ii) Stream B, broken down by PR category; (d) of the figures in (c), how many applications were (i) approved, (ii) rejected, (iii) under review; (e) of the rejections in (d), what are the categorized reasons for rejecting the application, broken down by number; (f) of the cases under review and rejections in (c), what is the breakdown of the applications by (i) individual applications, (ii) family applications; and (g) of the approvals in (c), how many were tied to existing departmental quotas for the temporary public policy or the department's annual planned admission range per IRCC's annual report for permanent residency admissions under (i) economic class migration, (ii) the family reunification program, (iii) the refugees and protected persons class, (iv) the "humanitarian and other" class? With regard to Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) and the open work permit pathway under a temporary public policy for Hong Kong residents: (a) what is the number of applications received by individuals of Hong Kong origin with "HKPPTR" inputted for the job title since the program was instituted in 2021; (b) of the applications in (a), how many were (i) accepted, (ii) rejected, (iii) under review; (c) of the rejections in (b), what is the breakdown of rejections by the location of the IRCC office or processing center; and (d) how many applications were rejected based on the lack of labour market impact assessment? With regard to the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada (IRB): (a) what is the total number of adjudicators at the Refugee Protection Division; (b) of the adjudicators in (a), how many have post­secondary degrees, broken down by (i) office, (ii) type of degree; (c) of the adjudicators in (a), how many have previous tribunal experience; (d) of the adjudicators with prior tribunal experience, (i) what office do they work in, (ii) how many years of experience do they have, (iii) what year were they hired; (e) of the adjudicators in (a), how many have prior public service experience; (f) for each adjudicator with prior public service experience, (i) what office do they work in, (ii) how many years of experience do they have, (iii) what year were they hired; and (g) what was the essential qualification criteria required to be an adjudicator at the IRB in (i) 2011, (ii) 2012, (iii) 2015, (iv) 2020, (v) August 2021, (vi) November 2021, (vii) 2023? With regard to the arrangements and travel costs for all government press briefings and pre-budget announcements in the lead-up to the tabling of the federal budget and to highlight the measures to be contained in the budget: what were the expenses and costs incurred from March 4, 2024, to April 16, 2024, the day of the budget speech, broken down by type of announcement, by date, by location and by the ministers, parliamentary secretaries and political staff present? With regard to the COVID-19 Therapeutics Task Force (TTF) who oversaw submissions for grant funding from Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada (ISED)’s Strategic Innovation Fund: (a) in total, how many projects were considered for funding; (b) with respect to the projects which were funded, (i) how many received funding, (ii) how much funding was allocated per project, (iii) which drugs were being investigated per each approved project, (iv) what was the total amount of funding granted for the approved projects; (c) with regard to the projects which were not approved for funding, what recommendations were made to them; (d) with regard to the therapeutics which were recommended for purchase, (i) what were these therapeutics, (ii) were these therapeutics purchased, (iii) what was the implementation plan, (iv) if there was no plan, why not; (e) were the drugs Ivermectin or Hydroxychloroquine considered by the TFF; (f) if the answer to (e) is affirmative, what were their recommendations and how did they arrive at them; (g) who were the members of the TTF; (h) were any of the members pharmacists, pharmacologists, or toxicologists; (i) what were the members' conflicts of interest; (j) did any of the members withdraw from the task force prior to its conclusion; (k) if the answer to (j) is affirmative, who left early and why; (l) regarding the document entitled “HEALTH CANADA/ PUBLIC HEALTH AGENCY OF CANADA MEMORANDUM TO THE MINISTER OF HEALTH, Meeting with the COVID-19 Therapeutics Task Force” dated February 24, 2021, and signed by the President of the Public Health Agency of Canada and the Deputy Minister of Health, which reads that “At the previous meeting TTF members expressed concern that their mandate was ending. TTF members were specifically concerned about what they felt was insufficient attention to therapeutics, failures of implementation, and the need to be forward looking for surveillance of upcoming therapeutic opportunities. It is expected that TTF members will raise these concerns to you”, (i) what concerns were raised to the signee, (ii) what documents were provided with respect to expressing those concerns; and (m) when and why was the TTF mandate ended? With regard to federal housing investments in Edmonton, since February 1, 2006, broken down by year: (a) how much federal funding was provided to support the construction of nonprofit or community housing and how many units were developed; (b) how much federal funding was provided to support the construction of cooperative housing and how many units were developed; and (c) how much federal funding was provided to support the construction of purpose-built rental housing and how many units were developed? With regard to the Court Challenges Program: (a) how much money has been delivered through the program in each of the last five years; (b) who has received money through the program, and how much was received; and (c) if the government refuses to answer (b) citing solicitor-client privilege, what is the government's rationale given that it is neither the solicitor nor the client in many of the related court cases? With regard to federal infrastructure funding, since January 1, 2016, broken down by year: (a) how much money has been distributed for infrastructure projects under the (i) Rural Transit Solutions Fund, (ii) Zero Emission Transit Fund, (iii) Active Transportation Fund, (iv) Green and Inclusive Community Buildings Program, (v) Natural Infrastructure Fund, (vi) Canada Healthy Communities Initiative; (b) what are the details of all projects in (a), including, for each, (i) the project description, (ii) the date of the funding announcement, (iii) the amount of funding originally announced, (iv) the amount of funding distributed to date, (v) the date the funding was transferred to the recipient, (vi) the recipient of the funding, (vii) the current status of the project, (viii) the project location, (ix) whether the location of the project is a Census Metropolitan Area or Census Agglomeration, (x) the original projected completion date for the project, (xi) the actual completion date for the project, if applicable, (xii) the current projected completion date for the project, (xiii) the reason for the project delay, if applicable; and (c) what are the details of any infrastructure funding which was announced, but for which the related project was later cancelled, including, for each, the (i) project name and description, (ii) project location, (iii) amount of funding originally announced, (iv) amount of funding transferred to the recipient, (v) date of the cancellation, (vi) reason for the cancellation? With regard to the Disability Tax Credit (DTC), broken down by fiscal year from 2015-16 to 2023-24: (a) what is the total number of people that applied to claim the DTC, broken down by basic activities of daily living (BADL); (b) what is the total number and percentage of approved DTC claims, broken down by BADL; (c) what is value of DTC claims broken down by BADL; (d) what is the number and percentage of new applications processed and accepted, broken down by BADL, and how many of those approved (i) had eligibility for the DTC for five years or more, (ii) expired after a certain number of years; (e) what is the number and percentage of new applications processed and rejected, broken down by BADL; (f) what was, or is, the total budget for all OTC-related operations; (g) what was, or is, the total employee count for all OTC-related operations, and what is the number of medical practitioners working on the DTC; (h) how many days, on average, did the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) take to assign a DTC application for review from the time of filing by the applicant; (i) how many days, on average, did the CRA take to mail (electronic or otherwise) a notice of determination related to a DTC application; (j) how many letters or correspondences did CRA send to the relevant medical practitioners asking for more information related to DTC applications received; (k) how many DTC applicants that were rejected or denied (i) requested a review of their application, (ii) challenged the CRA's decision by filing an income tax objection, (iii) moved beyond the CRA to an appeal filed to the Tax Court of Canada; (I) how long does the CRA take to review an application as noted in (k), (i) how many of those reviews resulted in an application being accepted; and (m) does the CRA have a dedicated telephone or TTY line for DTC applications, and (i) if so, how many calls has it received, (ii) if not, why not? With regard to the Select Luxury Items Tax (luxury tax) that came into effect on September 1, 2022: (a) what is the number of (i) aircrafts, (ii) vehicles, (iii) vessels, that were reported under the luxury tax, broken down by province and territory; (b) how many applications, registrations, forms, returns, and other documentation does the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) have associated with the luxury tax, including those seeking exemptions, for taxpayers, including the full title of each piece of documentation; (c) what has been the total cost to the CRA to implement and administer the luxury tax to date; (d) what are the total amounts submitted to the CRA by taxpayers to date under (i) Part D, (ii) Part E, (iii) Part F, of Form B500; and (e) what are the total amounts submitted to the CRA by taxpayers to date under (i) Part D, (ii) Part E, (iii) Part F, of Form B501? With regard to the Climate Action Incentive Fund (CAIF), broken down by province and year: how much money was returned through the CAIF’s Municipalities, Universities, Schools and Hospitals Retrofit stream, broken down by (i) municipality, (ii) university, (iii) school, (iv) hospital? With regard to federal infrastructure funding under the Investing in Canada Plan, since January 1, 2016, broken down by year: (a) how much money has been announced for projects located in (i) Census Metropolitan Areas (CMAs), (ii) Census Agglomerations (CAs), (iii) areas outside of CMAs or CAs; (b) how much money has been distributed for projects located in (i) CMAs, (ii) CAs, (iii) areas outside of CMAs or CAs; (c) what are the details of each project in (a) and (b), including the (i) name of the CMA the project is located in, if applicable, (ii) name of the CA the project is located in, if applicable, (iii) name of the region the project is located in, if applicable, (iv) project description, (v) amount of funding originally announced, (vi) amount of funding distributed to date, (vii) date the funding was transferred to the recipient, (viii) recipient of the funding, (ix) current status of the project, (x) original projected completion date for the project, (xi) actual completion date for the project, if applicable, (xii) current projected completion date for the project, (xiii) reason for the project delay, if applicable; and (d) of the funding announced for projects in (a), were any projects later cancelled, and, if so, what are the details of each, including the (i) name of the CMA the project is located in, if applicable, (ii) name of the CA the project is located in, if applicable, (iii) name of the region the project is located in, if applicable, (iv) project description, (v) amount of funding originally announced, (vi) amount of funding transferred to the recipient, (vii) date of the cancellation, (viii) reason for the cancellation? With regard to the M-KOPA project that received financing through the Development Finance Institute Canada (FinDev Canada), a Canadian Crown corporation that is a subsidiary of Export Development Canada (EDC): (a) what assessments has EDC made to ensure that M-KOPA is properly accounting for all expenditures of taxpayer funds provided by the Government of Canada; (b) has the government reviewed and analyzed any of the expenditures by M-KOPA through FinDev Canada and EDC, and, if so, what are the details of all written, electronic and other documents pertaining to M-KOPA and funds provided to this organization; (c) has any auditing been done of M-KOPA or of FinDev Canada in relation to M-KOPA, and, if so, what were the findings; (d) what was the timeline for the approval of investments made by the Government of Canada, through EDC to FinDev Canada then to M-KOPA; and (e) what are the details of all memorandums and briefing notes about M-KOPA, all financial and contractual details including all memorandums and briefing notes and scope documents and economic impact analysis as well as all other financial documents related to M-KOPA that were sent or received by EDC, FinDev Canada, or any relevant ministerial offices and ministers, deputy ministers, assistant deputy ministers, the Minister of Finance, the Prime Minister and the Office of the Prime Minister, the Privy Council Office, and any other outstanding documentation that discusses the provision of funding or potential funding and screening of M-KOPA from 2016 to 2024? With regard to the Canada Revenue Agency and write-offs of accounts receivable, broken down by fiscal year from 2015-16 to 2023-24: (a) what was the total amount of write-offs; (b) how many (i) individual taxpayers, (ii) corporations, had amounts written-off; (c) what was the average amount written-off for (i) individual taxpayers, (ii) corporations; (d) what was the dollar amount of the single largest write-off, broken down by the (i) Financial Administration Act, (ii) Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, (iii) Income Tax Act, (iv) Excise Tax Act; and (e) what was the dollar amount of the single largest write-off for (i) an individual taxpayer, (ii) a corporation? With regard to the Universal Broadband fund, broken down by year and province or territory: how much money did the fund disperse and how much money went to (i) Rogers, (ii) BCE, (iii) Telus, or its subsidiaries? With regard to the electoral district of Churchill—Keewatinook Aski, broken down by fiscal year since 2005-06: what are the details of all federal infrastructure investments, including direct transfers to municipalities, regional district associations or First Nations, national parks, highways, etc.? With regard to the government response to Order Paper Question Q-2422 regarding the awarding of non-competitive contracts, for Export Development Canada and for Public Services and Procurement Canada, broken down by year, from 2016 to the present: for each contract, what is the (i) recipient’s total amount of the contract, (ii) reason, if any, for awarding the contract, (iii) name of the organization that received the contract? With regard to spending on consultants by the government, broken down by year since 2018, and by department or agency: what was the total spending on external consultants (professional and special services) that are not an employee of a Crown corporation, agent of the Crown, or another department of the Government of Canada? With regard to individuals who were made to repay or whose COVID-era benefits such as the Canada Emergency Response Benefit, the Canada Emergency Student Benefit, the Canada Recovery Benefit, the Canada Recovery Caregiving Benefit, the Canada Recovery Sickness Benefit or the Canada Worker Lockdown Benefit were clawed back by the Canada Revenue Agency: (a) how many of these individuals, broken down by province and territory, and by income level, were (i) the only parent of a one-parent family, (ii) Indigenous, broken down by First Nations people, status and non-status, Metis and Inuit, (iii) people living below the poverty line, (iv) people on disability, (v) individuals aged 65 or older; (b) how much money was repaid or clawed back, broken down by individuals who were (i) the only parent of a one-parent family, (ii) Indigenous, broken down by First Nations people, status and non-status, Metis and Inuit, (iii) people living below the poverty line, (iv) people on disability, (v) aged 65 or older; and (c) what is the total number of Canadians and the total amount which was repaid or clawed back? With regard to the government’s military spending since 2015: what are the annual amounts of investments and purchases of goods and services, broken down by province and territory? With regard to federal funding and loans to Canada’s grocery sector, since January 1, 2006: how much federal funding has been provided to Loblaw Companies Limited and its subsidiaries, (i) No Frills, (ii) Real Canadian Superstore, (iii) Shoppers Drug Mart, (iv) Pharmaprix, (v) Provigo, (vi) Atlantic Superstore, (vii) Independent, (viii) T&T, broken down by company, year and type of funding? With regard to the introduction of the new icon launched on May 3, 2024, by the Canadian Army: (a) when did the planning of this new icon begin; (b) how long did it take to design this icon; (c) what are the details of all contracts related to the design of the icon, including (i) what outside contractors were involved, (ii) how much each contractor was paid, (iii) whether any related contracts were sole sourced, and, if so, which ones, (iv) how long the contractor took to complete this work, (v) when this work was completed; (d) how much did it cost overall to design this icon; (e) how many staff, if any, were involved in the design of this icon; (f) which members of the Department of National Defence were involved in the approval of this icon; (g) who gave the final approval to utilize this icon; (h) what costs, if any, were associated with the promotion of this icon once the work was completed, in total and broken down by type of cost; (i) what are the costs (i) incurred to date, (ii) projected to be incurred, to initiate the use of the new icon, including, but not limited to, the placement on advertisements, uniforms, stationary, broken down by category; (j) who approved the (i) communications plan, (ii) tweets, related to the release of the new icon; (k) what are the details of all contracts related to communicating the launch of this icon, including (i) what outside contractors were involved, (ii) how much each of these contractors were paid, (iii) whether any related contracts were sole-sourced, and, if so, which ones, (iv) how long it took them to complete this work, (v) when this work was completed; (l) what are the details of all contracts signed related to the promotion of this icon, including (i) what outside contractors were involved, (ii) how much each of these contractors has been, or will be paid, (iii) whether any related contracts were sole-sourced, and, if so, which ones, (iv) how long it took them to complete this work, (v) when this work was completed, (vi) whether any advertising was purchased, and, if so, how much and on which platforms; (m) what are the details of all contracts related to the surveys, focus testing, public opinion testing, or any other research about the new icon, including (i) what outside contractors were involved, (ii) how much each of these contractors were paid, (iii) whether any related contracts were sole-sourced, and, if so, which ones, (iv) how long it took them to complete this work, (v) when this work was completed; (n) how many staff, if any, were involved in the surveys, focus testing, public opinion testing, or any other research about the new icon; and (o) for each focus group or public opinion research that was conducted, (i) what questions were asked, (ii) what topics were analyzed, (iii) what were the results?

Mr. Speaker, I would ask that all remaining questions be allowed to stand at this time, please. The Speaker: Is that agreed? Some hon. members: Agreed.