Colin Carrie

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, April 10th, 2024]

With regard to Health Canada’s approval of the COVID-19 modRNA vaccines (modified with N1-methylpseudouridine) for pregnant women: (a) what specific research data supported the claims that (i) this product may be safely administered at any stage of pregnancy, (ii) this product protects pregnant women from SARS-CoV-2 infection and severe disease, (iii) the vaccinated mother is less likely to transmit SARS-CoV-2 to her newborn after delivery compared to an unvaccinated mother, (iv) the modRNA vaccine, and consequently the spike protein, do not excrete into breast milk, (v) the modRNA, and consequently the spike protein, do not cross the placental barrier, (vi) all modRNA is destroyed in the human body within about two days, (vii) there is no possibility that the modRNA vaccine contents will enter the cell nucleus and modify the human genome; (b) with respect to the claims in (a), has Heath Canada modified these claims based on updated scientific research, and if so, which claims and how; (c) what is the real-world data indicating that this product presents no safety concerns for the pregnant woman or the developing fetus or newborn; (d) what is the quantitative threshold for a concerning safety signal for these cohorts; (e) how has the monograph for the COVID-19 modRNA vaccines been updated in relation to pregnancy and lactation to convey this safety research data; and (f) when were these updates made?

[Questions on the Order Paper, April 8th, 2024]

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

[City of Oshawa, April 8th, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to recognize the 100th anniversary of the City of Oshawa. As we reflect on a century of growth, resilience and community spirit, we are proud of the tapestry of achievements and shared experiences that have shaped our city.

Oshawa, a name first chosen to represent the original settlement near Harmony Creek, received city status on March 8, 1924. We are the proud home of automotive prowess and pioneering spirit. From the assembly lines of General Motors to our vibrant cultural scene, Oshawa has continued to thrive, fuelled by the passion and dedication of its residents, the true architects of our success.

It has been an honour to serve as Oshawa's member of Parliament since 2004, and I look forward to sharing representation of our city with the new Conservative member for Durham.

Let us continue to nurture the spirit of innovation and entrepreneurship that has defined Oshawa for generations, fostering a dynamic environment where dreams can take flight and possibilities are limitless.

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, March 22nd, 2024]

With regard to the government authorization of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines: (a) when did Health Canada (HC), the Public Health Agency of Canada (PHAC), and the National Advisory Committee on Immunization (NACI), receive documentation from Pfizer acknowledging the presence of SV40 enhancer promoter sequence and SV40 poly(A)tail signal sequence in their vaccine BNT162b2; (b) with respect to the documentation related to (a), (i) how can the documentation be accessed, (ii) when was it received by HC, PHAC and NACI, (iii) was this documentation obtained before or after the BNT162b2 vaccine was authorized; (c) has HC asked Pfizer about the safety of the SV40 enhancer promoter sequence and SV40 poly(A)tail signal sequence in their vaccine, and, if not, why not; (d) if the answer to (c) is affirmative, what are the risk analyses that Pfizer did, if any, regarding these SV40 sequences; (e) what amount of SV40 sequences is considered safe (i) in a single Pfizer mRNA vaccine dose for distinct age groups, (ii) for repeated vaccine injections over time per each age group considered; (f) what were HC’s regulatory guidelines surrounding SV40 sequences in a vaccine prior to 2019; (g) what are the current (relevant for the period of 2019-2024) regulatory guidelines surrounding SV40 sequences in a conventional vaccine and in an mRNA vaccine; (h) how does HC know the SV40 fragments are inactive and have no functional role in mRNA vaccines; (i) has HC verified the amount of SV40 enhancer promoter sequence and SV40 poly(A)tail signal sequence in any of the Pfizer or Moderna mRNA vaccines, including the Pfizer XBB, and, if not, why not; (j) if the answer to (i) is affirmative, what was the outcome of this verification and how was this verification done; (k) what is HC’s official position with respect to the increased risk of DNA contaminants getting into human cells, including the cell nucleus, when encapsuled in liposomes, as is the case with the mRNA vaccines; (l) how has HC confirmed with certitude there is no genetic integration (i.e. in vivo transfection into the nucleus of human cells) of DNA plasmid fragments, which may or may not contain SV40 sequences, as found in either mRNA vaccine; (m) does the publicly undisclosed presence of SV40 sequences or any other adulteration (e.g. reverse open reading frames [ORF]) violate the terms and conditions of the Pfizer and Moderna contracts, and, if not, why not; and (n) if the answer to (m) is affirmative, what are the consequences?

[Questions on the Order Paper, March 22nd, 2024]

With regard to Health Canada’s authorization of COVID-19 vaccines, at the time of approval through the Interim Order Respecting the Importation, Sale and Advertising of Drugs for Use in Relation to COVID-19 in 2021: (a) was there evidence that the vaccines stopped people from transmitting the virus to others and, if (i) affirmative, what is the evidence, (ii) negative, what is the evidence for public messaging suggesting that herd immunity was achievable through mass vaccination; (b) why was the early initiative to track seroconversion of Canadians against SARS CoV 2 abandoned and the task force for this dissolved; and (c) why was naturally-acquired immunity not considered an appropriate form of immunity against SARS-CoV-2?

[Corrections and Conditional Release Act, February 27th, 2024]

Madam Speaker, I request a recorded vote.

[Corrections and Conditional Release Act, February 27th, 2024]

Madam Speaker, I want to say that I feel quite humbled and quite happy to be standing here this evening.

We have heard the speeches in the House and the comments from members in regard to this bill. We have actually had an opportunity, instead of talking about some of these crimes, to talk about victims and their families. I want to take this opportunity to sincerely thank my colleagues in the House. I also want to take this opportunity to thank the victims and their families for their strength and for their advocacy. In particular, we have heard the name of Lisa Freeman a few times. She is a constituent of mine, who, with incredible tenacity and stubbornness, has helped make getting this bill through the House a reality.

As my colleague from Haldimand—Norfolk said, “Knowledge is power.” This legislation would make a very simple amendment to the Corrections and Conditional Release Act with respect to the disclosure of information to victims. It would provide and give greater respect and transparency to families and victims.

This is a change, and I will agree that it is a small change, but we are in a situation in which we have heard examples of where criminals are now getting more support from the system than the victims. This needs to be reversed.

Criminals' rights should never trump victims' rights, but it seems to happen every single time. It is our job to protect victims' rights. It should never be a family's job. These families, when their loved ones are murdered, get a life sentence. There is the mental trauma and cost, and it never goes away. The least we can do is be more transparent about how the criminals who changed their lives forever are being managed.

As we have heard in some of the speeches, we are not going to fix all these serious matters with this one bill, but I think we can all agree that the system needs to be recalibrated. The rights of victims have to be made equal to, or rather they should always be made better than the rights of their offenders.

Here we have it, colleagues. A killer could be released into a community where his victims live, at the whim of his case management team, with no need to explain to the victims how the decision was made or when the release will take place, until after the fact. I know all members will agree that this is unconscionable. It should not be a fight that victims have to take on year after year, just to keep the most callous of murderers where they belong.

Under the guise of rehabilitation, victims of crime often must stand back and watch while violent offenders exercise their rights, which, as most victims of crime find, are nothing more than a mockery of the justice system and basic common sense.

Throughout this debate, we have been able to give victims' families a voice. I just want to add a more recent example, because it is very important that we pass this bill right away, as soon as we can. We heard, just last week, that Robert Pickton is now eligible to seek day parole, a murderer charged with killing 26 women and convicted of the deaths of six. I want to read some of the coverage from the families.

A cousin of one of Robert Pickton's victims stated, “The fact that he can actually apply is horrific.” This is what Ms. Williams said Wednesday, ahead of the candlelight vigil taking place by Pickton's old farm. She went on, “That threw me right off. I didn't know and the other families that I'm close to didn't know.”

It is extremely unlikely that Pickton would ever be released, but Ms. Williams, a fierce advocate for missing and murdered indigenous women and girls, said that the mere fact that he can apply is disgusting. She also stated, “Our justice system is horrific. It's racist and puts Indigenous women's lives in danger...It makes me sick to my stomach.”

She said that no one involved in the justice system informed victims' families that Pickton's day parole eligibility date was approaching, and she found out only after talking with a lawyer she knows.

This has to stop. I want to thank colleagues in the House for their unanimous support, because it is an opportunity for us to do something that is right, and we can do it now.

[Business of Supply, February 27th, 2024]

Madam Speaker, I must say how offended I am by this member's speech when he says that this is a stunt today. We can try to win a debate by using partisan rhetoric, but the purpose of the debate today is to recognize that a horrible thing happened and we want to prevent it in the future.

We look back to arrive scam and how it started in 2021 during the election, and we see it was used to say to Canadians that unvaccinated Canadians were a danger to vaccinated Canadians. It was the demonization of millions of Canadians. In the summer of 2021, we knew of the Delta variant and the Omicron, and that both vaccinated and unvaccinated people could get and spread the disease. Our own public officials from the Public Health Agency of Canada did not have the science to support the policy, so the government initiated a study with a guy named David Fisman at the University of Toronto. This study was so bad that there is a book called Fisman's Fraud: The Rise of Canadian Hate Science.

I just want to know how much money the Liberals spent on these studies to support this arrive scam when they knew that they did not have the science to even support it from day one.

[National Council for Reconciliation Act, February 12th, 2024]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour for me to speak on this very important bill. In my colleague's speech, he said how important it is for all people to be engaged. I agree with him, so my question is why the Liberals are excluding the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples.

This group was founded in 1971. It is the largest group representing aboriginal peoples in Canada who live off reserve, and as of 2011, over 70% of aboriginal people lived off reserve. If we really believe all people need to be engaged, why would they not allow such a large group to be participating in this? Will that affect the legitimacy? Could he please explain why this extremely large groups was left out?

[Corrections and Conditional Release Act, February 9th, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, the member is absolutely right. We do need to do more. This is a small change, but it would make a big difference. I thank the member for his kind words and support.