| Q-27942 — June 11, 2024 — — With regard to the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board (CPPIB), broken down by year since January 1, 2019: (a) how many cases of (i) gender discrimination, (ii) disability discrimination, were filed against the CPPIB; (b) of the cases in (a), how many were settled without formal litigation; (c) how many nondisclosure agreements were signed by former employees related to the cases in (a); (d) what percentage of the employee disciplinary actions and terminations were handled (i) internally by employee relations, (ii) by external counsel; (e) what is the breakdown of the number of discrimination cases filed against the CPPIB in each of its offices located in (i) Brazil, (ii) Hong Kong, (iii) India, (iv) London, (v) New York, (vi) San Francisco, (vii) Toronto; (f) which law firms were hired to represent the CPPIB and, broken down by city, what was the total amount in legal fees paid to each firm; (g) how much was paid in legal fees for (i) employee terminations, (ii) employee-initiated legal action against the CPPIB for which the CPPIB retained legal counsel; (h) what was the total severance paid out in each of its offices located in (i) Brazil, (ii) Hong Kong, (iii) India, (iv) London, (v) New York, (vi) San Francisco, (vii) Toronto; (i) which laws firms were hired and retained by the CPPIB in the offices located in (i) Brazil, (ii) Hong Kong, (iii) India, (iv) London, (v) New York, (vi) San Francisco, (vii) Toronto; (j) what were the legal fees paid annually for each of the law firms retained by the CPPIB to defend the CPPIB; (k) how many female employees were terminated through restructuring from Senior Associate level to Managing Director level for each of its offices located in (i) Brazil, (ii) Hong Kong, (iii) India, (iv) London, (v) New York, (vi) San Francisco, (vii) Toronto; (I) how many female employees were terminated through voluntary resignations from Senior Associate level to Managing Director level for each of its offices located in (i) Brazil, (ii) Hong Kong, (iii) India, (iv) London, (v) New York, (vi) San Francisco, (vii) Toronto; (m) how many (i) female, (ii) male, employees were promoted above the Senior Associate level; (n) what is the percentage of female departures from the Executive and Senior management pool from the CPPIB in its entirety and for each of its offices located in (i) Brazil, (ii) Hong Kong, (iii) India, (iv) London, (v) New York, (vi) San Francisco, (vii) Toronto; (o) what is the number of disability accommodation cases for (i) long-term, (ii) short-term, (iii) permanent, disability that were sent through Manulife; (p) how many employees who went through a Manulife accommodation remain with the CPPIB; (q) how many of the employees who remain with the CPPIB have been promoted in the last five years; (r) how many formal complaints brought by employees went through (i) a CPPIB Clearview Connects Whistleblower process, (ii) a CPPIB Conduct Review Advisor, (iii) a Legal and Compliance CPPIB, (iv) human resources; and (s) broken down by each part of (r), how many of the complainant employees remain employed by the CPPIB? |
| Q-28002 — June 11, 2024 — — With regard to Transport Canada and meetings concerning Unidentified Aerial Phenomena (UAP): (a) when Patrick Juneau was the Director of Aviation Safety Policy and Intelligence at Transport Canada, did he meet with any United States officials on the subject of UAP, and, if so, what are the details of all such meetings, including, for each, (i) the date, (ii) the location, (iii) the names and titles of those in attendance, (iv) what was discussed or agreed upon; (b) have any Transport Canada officials other than Patrick Juneau met with any United States officials on the subject of UAP, and, if so, who and what are the details of all such meetings attended by any Transport Canada official, including, for each, (i) the date, (ii) the location, (iii) the names and titles of those in attendance, (iv) what was discussed or agreed upon; and (c) what are the details, including the website where the agreement can be read, of any UAP information sharing agreements that Transport Canada is aware of, between Canadian entities and American entities? |
| Q-28082 — June 11, 2024 — — With regard to Health Canada’s (HC) approval of the modRNA COVID-19 vaccines manufactured by Pfizer and Moderna and distributed throughout Canada, its mechanism of action and the elements of which they are comprised: (a) how many copies of the modRNA molecule are in a single dose, for both the Pfizer and Moderna products, (i) for adults, (ii) for children; (b) how many copies of the antigen are in a single adult dose of Novavax; (c) if there is a significant numerical difference between the answers for (a) and (b), does this affect the immunological response; (d) how many copies of dsDNA are found in a single 30 microliter adult dose of (i) Pfizer’s product, (ii) Moderna’s product; (e) was a request made to Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna regarding the DNA size distribution in the vaccine and, if so, (i) what proportion of the total DNA quantity were under 200bp, (ii) what was the average, range and standard deviation; (f) what is the function of the modRNA; (g) what is the function of the lipid nanoparticles (LNPs); (h) what is the specific role(s) of N1-methyl-pseudouridine as used in the modRNA of the vaccines; (i) what safety data was available to HC at the time of approval and is currently available, regarding any and repeat exposure to the following in human cells (i.e., safety, efficacy, toxicity): (i) large amounts of N1-methyl-pseudouridine, (ii) dsRNA, (iii) cytosolic DNA, (iv) lipid nanoparticles; (j) with regard to the research underpinning (g), has a risk assessment been performed of the LNPs separately from that of the drug product for safety, toxicity; (k) does HC have any degradation data for the modRNA in the vaccines and, if so, what does the data show; (l) what is the duration of action of modRNA from the COVID-19 mRNA in the body and how was that measured; (m) in what cells and organs is spike protein most likely to be produced in the body; (n) in which cell types and tissues does the modRNA remain for the longest period of time and second longest period of time, and what are the time periods; (o) for what period of time does a person injected with modRNA produce spike protein; (p) is the production of spike protein dependent on cell type; (q) is there a known correlation between the amount of modRNA in the vaccine and the amount of spike protein produced by the cells; (r) has HC performed a risk assessment on the immunological, toxicological and carcinogenicity of the spike protein and, if so, what was the analysis, and, if not, why weren't these risk assessments considered necessary; (s) if production of spike protein antigen is prolonged for greater than three to five days, does prolonged exposure lead to ongoing production of antibodies; (t) if the answer to (s) is negative, will a study or investigation be undertaken to determine this; (u) if the answer to (s) is affirmative, and if antibodies are the indicator of immunity, why does efficacy wane with time when the antigen production is prolonged; (v) has the purity of the modRNA contained in the COVID-19 vaccines been determined; (w) if the answer to (v) is affirmative, what is the present accepted limit of fragmented and truncated modRNA; (x) if the answer to (v) is negative, why hasn’t the purity of the modRNA been established; (y) if production of spike protein expression is prolonged for more than three to five days, are there harmful sequelae to prolonged exposure; and (z) if the answer to (y) is affirmative, what are those harmful sequelae? |
| Q-28092 — June 11, 2024 — — With regard to Health Canada’s (HC) assessment of risks versus benefits for the COVID-19 vaccines: (a) did HC perform a formal analysis showing that the benefits of the COVID-19 vaccines outweigh the risks (i) at the time of interim order approval, (ii) at the time of authorization, under the amended Food and Drugs Regulation for September 2021, (iii) before the approval of each subsequent booster; (b) if the answer to (a) is affirmative, who performed the analysis and what were the results of the analysis, specifying the benefits and risks (i) at the time of interim order approval, (ii) at the time of authorization, under the amended Food and Drugs Regulation for September 2021, (iii) before the approval of each subsequent booster; (c) what specific scientific studies, real world data, and Canadian morbidity and mortality data were reviewed by HC to conclude the risks of the COVID-19 vaccines outweighed the risk of COVID-19 illness (i) at the time of interim order approval, (ii) at the time of authorization, under the amended Food and Drugs Regulation for September 2021, (iii) before the approval of each subsequent booster; (d) what were the risks that HC determined for the COVID-19 vaccines compared to the risks of the COVID-19 illness (i) stratified across age groups, (ii) for the immunocompromised, (iii) for seniors with two or more comorbidities, (iv) for pregnant and lactating women, and what were these results; (e) did HC use the Cleveland study entitled “Effectiveness of the Coronavirus Disease 2019 Bivalent Vaccine” by N. Shrestha et al to update their risk-benefit analysis of the current COVID-19 vaccine; (f) if the answer to (e) is negative, why not; (g) how were those individuals who received a COVID-19 vaccine classified as being “vaccinated” versus “unvaccinated” for the purposes of statistical analysis of clinical outcomes and vaccine efficacy by the following categories: (i) less than two weeks after first dose of the primary series, (ii) between two weeks and three months after first dose of the primary series, (iii) less than two weeks after second dose of the primary series, (iv) more than two weeks after second dose of the primary series, (v) less than two weeks after any booster dose, (vi) more than six months after any booster dose; (h) would the response in (g) be influenced by brand of COVID-19 vaccine, and, if so, how; (i) for Canadian morbidity and mortality data presented to the Canadian public to illustrate the efficacy of the COVID-19 vaccines, how were the definitions from (g) and (h) used; and (j) what data supported the definitions of the vaccination status as defined in (g)? |
|
| June 11, 2024 — — That, given that, |
| (i) Canada is facing many very serious problems, |
| (ii) the government has not only failed to provide leadership in addressing these problems but is actually contributing significantly to them, |
| (iii) Canadians are looking to their elected leaders to get to work on bringing home common sense solutions to these problems, like axing the carbon tax, fixing the budget, capping spending, ending wasteful spending which favours Liberal insiders, building more homes and stopping crime, |
| (iv) these problems cannot be allowed to worsen over the forthcoming summer adjournment, |
| the House instruct each of the following standing committees to hold five meetings, between Monday, July 8, 2024, and Friday, September 13, 2024, in order to hear from witnesses about the approaches they would take to prevent these problems from worsening and for implementing common sense solutions to address them: |
| (a) the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates, in relation to its study of federal government consulting contracts awarded to McKinsey & Company; |
| (b) the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, in relation to a study of Report 6, Sustainable Development Technology Canada, of the 2024 Reports of the Auditor General of Canada; |
| (c) the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities, in relation to a study of the housing crisis in Canada; |
| (d) the Standing Committee on Finance, in relation to a study of the cost of living for Canadians, including the impact caused by the carbon tax; and |
| (e) the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, in relation to a study on stopping crime and chaos, |
| provided that, |
| (f) these meetings shall each be at least two hours long and televised; and |
| (g) each standing committee shall, following these meetings, present a report or an interim report on its recommendations for solutions to these problems no later than Friday, October 11, 2024. |
| Notice also received from: |
| , , , and — June 11, 2024 |
|
| June 11, 2024 — — That, given that the cost of living crisis for Canadians continues to escalate without an end in sight, and, |
| (i) Food Banks Canada says that "Canada has reached a critical turning point as poverty and food insecurity worsen in every corner of the country," and there has been a record 150% increase in food bank use and 2 million Canadians use food banks every month, |
| (ii) rent, mortgages and the amount needed for a home downpayment have doubled after nine years of this Prime Minister and tent cities are now spread across the country with the City of Toronto seeing over 50 tent cities pop-up in a six-week period bringing the total to at least 250 across that city, |
| (iii) crime and chaos have plagued Canadian streets, including an explosion of car thefts which now costs the insurance industry more than $1-billion, meaning Canadians are paying higher insurance premiums every month, |
| this House declare that there is a cost of living emergency in Canada and, therefore, instruct: |
| (a) the Standing Committee on Finance to work this summer on developing solutions to this cost of living emergency, by holding at least 20 meetings to hear from experts and by preparing recommendations which will lower prices and interest rates; and |
| (b) the Standing Committee on Public Accounts to work this summer on developing solutions to this cost of living emergency, by holding at least five meetings to hear from experts and by preparing recommendations to reduce wasteful spending that is keeping inflation high; |
| provided that, |
| (c) these meetings shall be, |
| (i) televised, |
| (ii) scheduled for at least two hours each, |
| (iii) held between Monday, July 8, 2024, and Friday, September 13, 2024; and |
| (d) each standing committee shall present a report or an interim report on its recommendations no later than Friday, September 27, 2024. |
| Notice also received from: |
| , , , and — June 11, 2024 |
| M-109 — April 29, 2024 — Resuming consideration of the motion of , seconded by , — That: |
| (a) in the opinion of the House, |
| (i) the ability to propose amendments to the Standing Orders is essential to adapt and improve parliamentary procedures and to the rights of members, |
| (ii) it is crucial to maintain open and transparent debate on proposed changes to the Standing Orders, free from undue procedural restrictions by the government or a subset of members, |
| (iii) all Members of the House, not the government nor a subset of members, should be the final authority as to how long proposed changes to the Standing Orders should be considered; |
| (b) it be an instruction to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs to undertake a study on the advisability of amending the Standing Orders as follows: |
| (i) by adding, after Standing Order 56.1(1)(b), the following new Standing Order: |
| “56.1(1)(c) For greater certainty, this Standing Order does not apply to proceedings that propose amendments to the Standing Orders.”, |
| (ii) by adding, after Standing Order 57, the following new standing order: |
| “57(2) This Standing Order does not apply to proceedings that propose amendments to the Standing Orders. For greater certainty, the question cannot be put on a motion pursuant to Standing Order 57 that would apply to proceedings that propose amendments to the Standing Orders.”, |
| (iii) by adding, after Standing Order 61, the following new standing order: |
| “61(3) This Standing Order does not apply to proceedings that propose amendments to the Standing Orders. For greater certainty, the question cannot be put on a motion pursuant to Standing Order 61 that would apply to proceedings that propose amendments to the Standing Orders.”, |
| (iv) by adding, after Standing Order 66(2)(c), the following new section: |
| “66(2)(d) Notwithstanding any other standing order, a motion for the concurrence in a report from a standing or special committee wherein the report proposes amendments to the Standing Orders shall: |
| (i) in the first instance, be considered until no member wishes to speak, upon which the Speaker shall put all questions necessary to dispose of the motion without further debate or amendment, or until debate is adjourned or interrupted, or for three hours, whichever is earlier, upon which time debate on the motion shall be resumed at the ordinary hour of daily adjournment on the day designated pursuant to paragraph (a) of this section, and |
| (ii) in the second and any subsequent instances, be considered until no member wishes to speak, upon which the Speaker shall put all questions necessary to dispose of the motion without further debate or amendment, or until debate is adjourned or interrupted, or for an additional three hours, whichever is earlier, upon which time debate on the motion shall again be resumed at the ordinary hour of daily adjournment on the day subsequently designated pursuant to paragraph (a) of this section.”, |
| (v) by adding, after Standing Order 81(13), the following new section: |
| “81(13)(b) If the motion proposes amendments to the Standing Orders, a question on the referral of the matter to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs is deemed put at the end of the debate and, if resolved in the affirmative, it shall become an order of reference to the committee to consider the motion and to report observations and recommendations on the motion back to the House not later than 75 sitting days after the referral”; |
| (vi) in Standing Order 93(1)(a), by adding, at the end, the following: “If the motion proposes amendments to the Standing Orders, a question on the referral of the matter to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs is deemed put at the end of the debate and, if resolved in the affirmative, it shall become an order of reference to the committee to consider the motion and to report observations and recommendations on the motion back to the House not later than 75 sitting days after the referral”; and |
| (c) the committee report its findings to the House no later than 75 sitting days following the adoption of this motion. |
| Debate — one hour remaining, pursuant to Standing Order 93(1). |
| Voting — at the expiry of the time provided for debate, pursuant to Standing Order 93(1). |