Colin Carrie

[Criminal Code, February 13th, 2023]

Madam Speaker, we are living in a time when Canadians have lost trust in our institutions, whether it is the government, whether it is media, whether it is even the medical profession. We need to rebuild that trust. Canadians need to believe in their country and what it stands for. This bill that we are passing, hopefully, would just delay a very bad idea.

Could my colleague comment on why we really have to stop and re-evaluate? He said in his speech that he never even thought this would go to mental health. The original justice minister who put this forward was against it. Why do we have to rebuild this trust? Why is it so important that we speak out against this?

[Criminal Code, February 13th, 2023]

Madam Speaker, my colleague from Tobique—Mactaquac gave a very heartfelt speech. He has followed this closely.

If all of us in this House remember, when this bill was originally put forward, it was supposed to be very narrowly cast. One of the trade-offs was that the government was going to be putting in supports for palliative care for mental health. Sadly, we have not seen those investments. Even the original justice minister, Jody Wilson-Raybould, was not in support of extending this to people with mental illness.

The member mentioned at the beginning of his speech that sometimes countries have to make a decision on how they want to be perceived in their heart and soul. Why is it so important right now that we make a stand to not continue down this slippery slope? Canadians are going through a horrible time and need that support.

What does he recommend at this time in history?

[Business of Supply, February 9th, 2023]

Mr. Speaker, I am very concerned when we see the Liberal Party of Canada aligning its ideology with the Bloc Québécois. They are very divisive. The Bloc, at least, is clear about it, but I would like to remind the House that there has never been a constitutional crisis under the Conservative Party when the Conservative Party has been in government. Now we see the Bloc and the Liberals working together so they do not have to talk about their miserable eight years and their poor record for the Canadian and Quebec people.

I would like my colleague to talk about this dangerous game that the Liberals and the Bloc are playing in regard to Canadian unity.

[Committees of the House, February 6th, 2023]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague points out a difference: For procurement there is a certain something being received, but the McKinsey situation is about advice. We have some of the best public service members in the world, and when they were questioned about this, they said they could not even find what was offered to the Canadian population by these contracts.

I am wondering if the member could comment on the issue of accountability, because obviously the government gave out these contracts. What does he think we can do to help improve confidence in this situation? I am really worried that Canadians are losing trust in our institutions with each scandal that comes from the Liberal government. What can we do to regain that trust in our institutions?

[Canada Early Learning and Child Care Act, January 31st, 2023]

Mr. Speaker, I think everyone agrees that affordable, quality child care is critical, but if one cannot access it, it does not exist.

I come from Oshawa where we have a lot of shift work. People require it for different opportunities. Some people work on the weekend. My colleague, the member for Windsor West, talked about the labour shortage.

Could my colleague discuss options for people who just do not fall into the nine to five option? The bill would do absolutely nothing for this accessibility issue. Does he have some ideas for the government to improve the bill?

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, January 30th, 2023]

With regard to Health Canada's (HC) approval of the Pfizer COVID-19 mRNA vaccine (BNT162b2): (a) was HC aware that the World Health Organization's internationally accepted guidelines for vaccine evaluation, published in 2005 and 2014, are only applicable to traditional vaccines that contain immunogenic substances and adjuvants, and, if not, why not; (b) if the answer to (a) is affirmative, why did HC not require the use of a guidance document applicable to non-traditional COVID-19 mRNA vaccines that are based instead on gene therapy, such as BNT162b2; (c) did the non-clinical pharmacokinetic studies, which also evaluated the biodistribution of the BNT162b2 (V9) lipid nano-particle (LNP) formulation, reported by Pfizer, show extensive off-target biodistribution to major organs in rodents; (d) if the answer to (c) is affirmative, did HC consider the non-clinical biodistribution data to be a major safety concern, and, if not, why not; (e) were clinical pharmacokinetic studies on the biodistribution of the vaccine-encoded spike protein included in the regulatory submission, and, if not, why not; (f) were clinical studies on appropriate biomarkers (e.g. troponin-1 as an indicator for heart damage, C-reactive protein for inflammation) associated with possible vaccine adverse effects related to spike protein in the blood circulation, included in the regulatory submission, and, if not, why not; (g) were clinical studies on the variability of vaccine-generated spike protein concentration between different vaccine recipients for different lots of the COVID-19 mRNA vaccines administered included in the regulatory submission, and, if not, why not; (h) did HC request that relevant genotoxicity and carcinogenicity studies on the vaccine-generated spike protein, as the active component, be included in the regulatory submission, and, if not, why not; (i) why did HC find as acceptable non-clinical studies of vaccine safety using Wistar Han rats; (j) why did HC find as acceptable toxicology studies on the vaccine-generated spike protein that did not also use a non-rodent species; (k) why did HC find as acceptable toxicology studies that did not use a relevant rodent species, such as the Chinese golden hamster, to examine toxic effects of the vaccine-generated spike protein; (l) why did HC not request toxicology studies using Chinese golden hamsters to examine the distribution of vaccine-generated spike protein in the specific tissues of both the mother and the pups to gather information as to whether BNT162b2 is suitable to administer to pregnant women and mothers who are breastfeeding, for more trustworthy clinical data; (m) was HC aware that Table 1 in the Module 5.3.6 Cumulative Analysis of Post-authorization Adverse Event Reports, submitted by Pfizer, states that there were 1,223 deaths over a 3-month period, from December 1, 2020 to February 28, 2021; (n) if the answer to (m) is affirmative, why did HC not recommend that COVID-19 mRNA vaccines be immediately taken off the market on the basis of the high mortality rate following drug administration; (o) has HC investigated the flaws in the documentation of Pfizer's regulated study, as shown in Table 1 of the aforementioned report, which classified the case outcomes of 9,400 people as "unknown," and which indicated that the age of 6,876 cases could not be determined, and, if not, why not; (p) how does HC justify its position that there is no special COVID-19 vaccine hazard for humans based on conventional studies of repeat dose toxicity, when not even immune-histochemistry staining for the vaccine-encoded spike protein was performed with any relevant species; and (q) how does HC view the real-world effectiveness of the COVID-19 mRNA vaccines in reducing viral transmission, when considering peer-reviewed studies that document similar peak loads of viable SARS-CoV-2 virus in the upper airway of fully vaccinated infected individuals and unvaccinated infected individuals, as well as reports of vaccine-induced immune suppression, indicated by reduced production of viral N-protein antibodies following breakthrough infection?

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, January 30th, 2023]

With regard to the clinical trials conducted on COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness, specifically those pertaining to the widely distributed vaccines by Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna that Health Canada reviewed, vaccine mandates, and vaccination campaigns: (a) how many trial participants contracted COVID-19, broken down by participants in the experimental and control groups, versus the total number of participants; (b) why was the information in (a), necessary for ascertaining the absolute risk reduction of acquiring COVID-19 following vaccination, not communicated to the general public to enable a more realistic assessment of health risks in support of informed consent; (c) did any trial protocol deviations occur in trial participants who contracted COVID-19; (d) was the government aware that the clinical trials did not test the ability of the vaccines to stop viral transmission before implementing the federal vaccination policy for government employees, whose stated objectives include the protection of these employees as well as their colleagues and clients from COVID-19; (e) if the answer to (d) is affirmative, what was the justification to mandate relatively healthy government employees to get vaccinated against SARS-CoV-2; (f) who made the decision to implement the policy in (d); and (g) how does the government justify its continued campaigns to encourage vaccination in relatively healthy Canadians, starting as young as 6 months?

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, January 30th, 2023]

With regard to the clinical trials conducted on COVID-19 vaccine safety, specifically those pertaining to the widely distributed vaccines by Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna that Health Canada reviewed: (a) were objections raised by the government when these vaccines were allowed to be given to the relatively healthy, unvaccinated trial participants mid-way into Phase 3 of the placebo-controlled clinical trials; (b) if no action was taken in relation to (a), why not; (c) of the safety data that could be analyzed, showing level-1 evidence of vaccine-induced harm (e.g. a risk increase in severe adverse events, more death, and after dissolution of the control group, more deaths in the experimental group), how were they used, if at all, when performing risk-benefit analyses; and (d) what specific information was used by the government to arrive at their position that there was more benefit to administering the COVID-19 vaccines to relatively healthy Canadians than risk?

[Questions on the Order Paper, January 30th, 2023]

With regard to subsidies for news outlets which the government has classified as a Qualified Canadian Journalism Organization (QCJO) and the call with stakeholders on July 20, 2020, involving the Canada Revenue Agency and the Department of Finance: (a) which QCJOs and other media organizations (i) were invited, (ii) attended the call with stakeholders; and (b) how did the government choose which organizations would be invited to participate in the event?

[Canada Early Learning and Child Care Act, January 30th, 2023]

Madam Speaker, I am from Oshawa, and in Oshawa we do factory work. Conservatives believe in equal support and accessibility. I am wondering what my colleague's comments would be for people who are working shift work, whether that is overnight or in the afternoon, or people who are rural who would like to have equal access and support.

It is very important for me. My wife has her ECE. It is very important for all Canadians, but on this idea of accessibility and equality, I was wondering if she maybe has some input and advice for the government.