Ted Falk

[Privilege, November 19th, 2024]

Madam Speaker, the member asks a very interesting question. I wish he had listened to what I was saying, because he would understand the relevance.

The relevance was the misinformation and the disinformation provided by the Liberal government, by the Prime Minister, to Canadians about the safety and effectiveness of the vaccines. There have been vaccine injury support program claims made by Canadians who have had negative experiences, and I hear from many of them in my constituency office and in my Hill office. Those claims are not being approved in a judicious manner, and they are not being paid out as they should be. That is the whole point.

SDTC officials had no problem getting $400 million out the door, but the over $100 million that has been earmarked for vaccine injuries seems to be lagging significantly. That is my point: The money is not getting out the door. It seemed to get out the door somehow for Liberal insiders but not for people who did what the government asked them to do and suffered negative consequences for it. Those people are not getting reimbursed, and they should be.

In fact, what people are being offered instead of cash is MAID, and that is so incredibly sad. I heard stories from vaccine-injured people who, because of being so frustrated with their injuries and the failure to be recognized for the hardships they have gone through, have been offered MAID. Some have actually participated in that program. That is incredibly sad.

The message I bring to the government from my constituents is to just butt out, provide the basic services government is supposed to provide and then back off and let people live their lives. My constituents want the government to axe the tax, stop the reckless deficit spending, stop the alarmist anti-energy crusade and embrace responsible resource development.

Under the Prime Minister, Canada is going through the worst decline in our living standards in 40 years, the worst drop in income per person in the G7 and the worst economic growth in the OECD. However, the Prime Minister and his radical, woke environment minister just keep making things worse by attacking Canadian energy and energy workers. Their latest scheme is what they claim is an emissions cap. It is not really an emissions cap. This is not a cap on emissions; it is a cap on responsible Canadian oil production. It is a cap on jobs, on paycheques and on prosperity for Canada. Let us label it for what it is rather than as a cap on emissions: The Liberal government wants to cap Canadians.

The government's own analysis admits that the cap is going to cost Canada billions of dollars and thousands of jobs. We would think its members learned their lesson from previous failures in attacking the energy sector; they have missed every single climate target with their carbon tax, and all they have done is make people exponentially poorer.

The Prime Minister and his radical environment minister refuse to accept that Canada's energy sector is the country's single-largest private sector investor in clean technology. Canadian oil and gas is the best in the world. The sector has a clear record of reducing emissions and adhering to the highest standards of environmental protection, not to mention that, in 2022, the oil and gas industry provided $45 billion in revenue to Canadian governments, funding schools, hospitals, roads and other crucial public infrastructure.

Instead of celebrating this and working with Canada's energy workers to tackle environmental issues, Liberals want to crush the energy sector, putting hundreds of thousands of jobs at risk at the worst time possible. This ideological crusade against Canadian energy must end.

We could be working to fix the budget. We could be working on common-sense energy policies to get Canada's economy booming again. However, we are stuck here instead, talking about another Liberal scandal.

A big one is immigration, which is a significant concern in my riding. My office does a lot of work on immigration files. We help hundreds, if not thousands, of people a year, both Canadians and those seeking to become Canadians. However, our immigration system is broken. It is out of control. The government finally admitted that a couple of weeks ago; I believe it did so again just recently. Its radical, reckless and uncontrolled immigration policies are partly to blame for joblessness, the housing crisis and the health care crisis Canadians are facing.

The Liberals increased population growth by over 200% in the last several years. They did it without ensuring adequate housing, health care or available jobs for newcomers. The government also failed spectacularly to ensure that those flooding into the country were given proper background checks. To add insult to injury, the Prime Minister called Canadians racists if they questioned his reckless policy.

I can say on behalf of the incredibly diverse group of people, including newcomers, that my office has helped and those who have lived here for years that it is not racist to ask why the government is bringing upwards of one million new people each year when there are not even enough homes for Canadians, including many new Canadians who are already here. It is not racist to question the wisdom of bringing in more people who will cause additional strain on an already untenable health care system and social safety net when Canadians are unable to access those programs and forced to wait unacceptably long periods to receive services that they have paid for with their tax dollars. The government's failures on immigration are almost too many to chronicle.

With that, there have been discussions among the parties and if you seek it, I am confident you will find unanimous consent to see the clock at 7:32 p.m.

[Privilege, November 19th, 2024]

Madam Speaker, it is always a privilege to stand in the House to speak about important matters, not only to my constituents but also to all Canadians. It is always good to be able to do so in great detail, delving into the various areas of importance of a given issue.

Clearly, the House has not yet had ample time to consider the matter of privilege set before us or the full ramifications of the government's failures. We are happy to continue in our quest to help the government understand this issue. We will give it an opportunity to consider its position, and perhaps even reconsider it, and take the steps that the House has been requesting for some time now. That is to stop holding up the House's business and the business of the nation, as well as to turn over the documents so that we can get back to the pressing issues concerning Canadians, rather than the political issues that appear to be so concerning to the Liberal government.

The passion for secrecy and cover-ups that defines the government is deeply troubling. When we look at the scandals of the government, of the failed and corrupt Prime Minister, it is really quite astounding. We have the Aga Khan island scandal, SNC-Lavalin, WE Charity, billions of dollars in so-called COVID spending that found its way into the pockets of Liberal insiders, the ArriveCAN scam, McKinsey, the green slush fund, foreign interference, and the degree to which China has been allowed to infiltrate this country and put our citizens at risk.

The list goes on and on, and most of that is just from the Prime Minister. If we throw in a few of his ministers, the list gets exponentially longer. Every time, the Liberals seek to cover up the truth from Canadians. They refuse to produce documents, refuse to be transparent and refuse to answer the most basic questions; they cannot even bring themselves to tell us who the real Randy is. It is just sad. It is no wonder that a growing majority of Canadians no longer trust the Liberals and are champing at the bit to throw them out of office.

I had to laugh the other week. The Minister of Innovation is the same minister who was in charge of overseeing Sustainable Development Technology Canada, also known as SDTC, this green slush fund that we are going to keep talking about. He is a nice guy, but he said the other week that the question being asked on every street corner in Canada is why the Leader of the Opposition will not get his security clearance. That just shows how out of touch with Canadians the government is.

It tells me that the minister has not even ventured very far beyond Wellington Street in recent months. I can tell him that this is not the question Canadians are asking. They are not asking that of me in my riding, and I am talking to my constituents. Do members want to know what I hear every single day, often multiple times a day? I am asked when we can get rid of the Prime Minister. People say we need to get rid of him; we need to get rid of the corrupt Liberals who are destroying our country.

It does not matter if I am at a community event, a high school, a farm, a church event or even at Remembrance Day events. I have had the opportunity, as I am sure all of my colleagues have, to attend those Remembrance Day services during our constituency week. It is always a privilege to participate, particularly to meet our veterans and their family members. However, it is always the same. Even at Remembrance Day events, the question is the same: How and when are we getting rid of the Prime Minister? The Liberals are destroying the Canada people knew, loved and fought for. It is a sad indictment of the failed government and its radical, woke policies.

On the other hand, Canadians like our leader. There is a reason for that. The difference is that the Leader of the Opposition is listening to Canadians. He is not lecturing. We can watch the Leader of the Opposition at a rally or an event with staff. He will stand there, sometimes for hours, and meet every single person. He will take the time to talk to them, to ask them about themselves and their concerns. He takes the time to listen to Canadians.

I have seen the Leader of the Opposition go for three-plus hours at events. He is not telling people what to think, to feel or to believe. He is not talking down to them or going after them if they say something that he disagrees with. He is actually listening to Canadians. He is listening to their concerns and offering up common-sense solutions. Canadians are common-sense people, and they trust him and our great team over on this side of the House, Canada's common-sense Conservatives, to fix the problems that the government has created.

Trust is a big deal. Once that is broken, it is awfully hard to win it back. When someone breaks trust, when they get caught often enough, as the Liberals have, it is broken. When the people cannot trust the government, that spells disaster for a country. In a democracy where the government does not trust the people, that is equally disastrous. The current government does not trust the people.

It refuses to trust them with the truth. It refuses to listen to the growing majority of Canadians who are begging for the Prime Minister to step down, to give them the election they are asking for, a carbon tax election, a referendum on its disastrous record. Speaking of disaster, the government has often been compared to the Titanic, particularly when it comes to shuffling some of these failed ministers. The ship is plowing straight ahead toward an iceberg, another scandal. Rather than switch course, the Prime Minister is busy rearranging the deck chairs. This combination did not work for the Titanic and it is not going to work here either. However, he continues on with that. He shuffles the chairs. He sees a minister failing in one or two portfolios and he promotes them to a third.

I think there is a secondary way we could look at this comparison, particularly in relation to an iceberg being a scandal, including the scandal of SDTC. When we see an iceberg, 90% of it is under water; it is hidden from view. That is often how scandals work. We only see 10%. We only see a sliver, and there is an indication there is something going on here. Something does not feel right. Something is amiss here, but it is only 10% of the real scandal. There is 90% hidden from view. They want to keep talking about this motion because they want to keep covering it up. They refuse to hand over the documents. It begs the question: what else are they hiding? What else is that 90% that we have not even discovered?

It is dangerous to Canadians, but it is far more dangerous to the government and the Prime Minister to shed light onto that. The sad part is that these Liberals are desperately trying to cover up their latest scandal to protect the Prime Minister who is not worth the cost, the chaos or the corruption. Canadians are hurting and they are afraid. Like I said, I go home every weekend so I can connect with and hear from my constituents. A lot of folks cannot afford to eat, heat or house themselves in Canada. Many of these folks have good jobs, and some of them have more than one job. They work hard, they work long hours, but they still cannot afford the skyrocketing cost of living under the government.

The government has borrowed, printed and spent money so recklessly as to double the size of our national debt. The Prime Minister has spent more money than every other prime minister and government in our history combined. They are addicted to spending. There are solutions for people who are addicted and that is to get addictions counselling. I think that is what the government needs. As a result of this addiction, everyday Canadians are forced to make sacrifices and they are getting tired of doing it. They are sick of the corruption they see happening here in Ottawa. They are sick of the government having its hand in its pocket. They are sick of being told what to think, feel and believe. They are sick of the arrogant, “I-know-better-than-everyone” attitude that pervades the Liberal government. They are fed up with seeing their hard-earned money that should be going to feed their kids, fix the house, maybe go into a savings account for a rainy day, go into the pockets of wealthy and well-connected Liberals, like what has happened at SDTC.

Here, on the opposition benches, at least Conservatives are saying that we understand, we hear them, we agree. We are standing up for Canadians and their interests in Ottawa. We are here trying to hold the government accountable for the money it has stolen. Yes, I mean stolen. It has stolen it from the taxpayer. SDTC, this green slush fund, where Liberals took taxpayer dollars and gave them to their own companies, that is theft. ArriveCAN was theft. The government and the Prime Minister need to be held accountable. To what extent they must be held accountable we will not know until we actually see the full damage, until we see the documents and until Canadians know what was happening with that 90% under the water.

As I mentioned earlier, the sad reality is we sit here debating what is really undebatable. The folks at SDTC took nearly $400 million of taxpayer dollars and gave it to themselves. That is indefensible. The sad reality is, while we are here debating this, there are other important issues we are not able to address.

The government's failure to be transparent has bogged us down in process for weeks now. All the Liberals need to do for the House to continue with the good work that it should be doing is come clean and present the documents unredacted, as they have been requested to do by the Speaker of the House. Then we can all get back to important issues. However, they will not do that. They refuse. They are way more concerned with their own plight than that of the people they are supposed to be serving.

I would like to take a few minutes to talk about some of the issues that folks in my riding of Provencher are bringing to me, who tell me what could have been done with the $400 million. I have already mentioned some of the scandals, the Liberal corruption and the desire for the Prime Minister to finally take a hint and resign. I have also mentioned some of the major issues for my people. I think for the country it is about the cost of living, but here are a few more issues.

The abuses heaped by governments at all levels on citizens during COVID still remain a major issue in my riding. Restrictions and vaccine mandates damaged the social fabric of our communities and a generation of young people.

Two years ago, when we were debating Bill C-293 in the House, I raised the troubling reality that some 51,714 documented Canadians had suffered vaccine injuries as a result of their COVID shots. At the time, I reported, based on the numbers available on the government's website, that 10,501 people had suffered severe reactions, including 874 anaphylactic reactions, 1,342 cases of myocarditis, 104 thrombosis cases and 382 reports that had an outcome of death. I also shared that despite all of that, the government's vaccine injury support program had paid out a mere eight claims. Many Canadians do not know this, but the government does have a vaccine injury support program. It is called VISP. It can be found on the Government of Canada's website.

That was in November 2022. Two years later, in November 2024, where we are today, the number of injuries has risen to 58,712, with 488 reported deaths. After two years, do colleagues know how many claims have been approved? After thousands of injuries and thousands of claims, a mere 183 claims have been approved. There is still a question as to whether compensation has actually been issued. The truly bizarre thing is that back in April, the government added another $36 million to the existing $75 million it had allocated to the vaccine injury support program. Why are folks not getting their money? The folks over at SDTC seemed to have had no problem disbursing nearly $400 million in fairly quick order.

These injured folks did what the government told them to do. The Prime Minister and all of his ministers looked down the lens of a camera and told Canadians to get these shots, that they were safe and effective. Every day, we heard from the Prime Minister. Every day he came out and told Canadians to get the shot; it would prevent them from getting sick. That did not work. It was supposed to prevent them from transmitting COVID to somebody else. That did not work. It was supposed to prevent them from going to the hospital. That did not work. It was supposed to prevent them from being in the ICU. That did not work. It was supposed to prevent them from dying. It did not prevent that either. In fact, the greatest number of deaths from COVID occurred among those who had been triple vaccinated.

[Privilege, November 4th, 2024]

Madam Speaker, at the beginning of the hon. member's speech, he talked about his grandchildren and how important it was that he was here to secure their future.

Could he elaborate a little bit more on why it is important to illuminate the corruption of the Liberal government and what it will mean for future generations?

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, October 30th, 2024]

With regard to Health Canada's (HC) establishing the safety of the Pfizer/BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine in 12-15 year olds: (a) what serious adverse events (SAEs) did the pharmaceutical company disclose to Canada's health agencies for this age group pre-authorization; (b) since approving the product in this age group, has the Public Health Agency of Canada (PHAC), the National Advisory Committee on Immunization (NACI) or HC become aware of additional adverse events (AEs) or SAEs that the pharmaceutical company had not disclosed during the initial authorization process; (c) if the answer to (b) is affirmative, (i) what AEs and SAEs has the PHAC, the NACI and HC become aware of, (ii) when were they discovered, (iii) what are the means by which Canada's health agencies were provided this information; (d) prior to authorizing this product in this age group, was the PHAC, HC or the NACI given information about (i) the SAEs of a 12-year-old trial participant named Maddie de Geray who was diagnosed with chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy which rendered her reliant on a wheelchair and feeding tube, (ii) any other specific SAE cases in this cohort following the Pfizer inoculation; (e) if the answer to (d) is affirmative, what was the date and means by which the PHAC, the NACI or HC became aware of these cases; (f) if the answer to (d) is negative, has Ms. De Geray's diagnoses been added to HC's list of SAEs on the HC website in this age group; (g) has the PHAC, HC or the NACI been aware that the adverse events experienced by trial participant Maddie de Geray were not properly disclosed within their trial studies as described in the scientific publication of said trial (i.e. NEJM - Frenck et al. 2021); (h) did the PHAC, HC or the NACI take any action after discovering the lack of proper disclosure of Maddie de Geray's SAEs by Pfizer; (i) what was the age stratified risk-benefit analysis for 12-15 year olds in relation to the Pfizer/BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine at the time of authorization, on May 5, 2021; (j) what was the data and calculations for quantifying the risks and benefits that Canadian health agencies used to authorize or approve the product in this age group; (k) what data indicated that the benefits of the vaccine outweighed the risks at the time of authorization; (l) since the roll-out of the Pfizer/BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine in this age group, (i) what are the top ten SAEs identified in this cohort, (ii) how have these SAEs been communicated to the medical community and the public at large; (m) what type and frequency of SAEs in 12-15-year-old would invoke an unfavourable benefits-risk ratio for healthy children and for children with underlying medical conditions; and (n) is HC, the PHAC or the NACI aware of any other jurisdictions worldwide that no longer recommends the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines in children at (i) six months of age, (ii) between six months and two years (iii) between two to five years, (iv) between five to 12 years, (v) between 12-15 year, (vi) between 15-18 years?

[Questions on the Order Paper, October 30th, 2024]

With regard to Health Canada's (HC) review of the COVID-19 modRNA vaccine products: (a) did HC consider the specific nature of the nanotechnology of the lipid particles used for the modRNA vaccine delivery; (b) if the answer to (a) is affirmative, what was their assessment; (c) why was the fact that modRNA vaccines contain nanotechnology omitted from the product monograph-label; (d) did HC assess the toxicity of pegylated nanoparticles, specifically the risk for complement activated related pseudo allergy (CARPA) with the lipid nanoparticles used in the mRNA vaccines; (e) if the answer to (d) is affirmative, why was this not included in the product labelling; (f) if the answer to (d) is negative, why wasn't this assessed; (g) did HC assess the risk of toxicity due to the nanoformat of these vaccines; (h) if the answer to (g) is affirmative, what was the assessment result; (i) if the answer to (g) is negative, why not; (j) did HC assess the lipid nanoparticles as a novel excipient; (k) if the answer to (j) is affirmative, what was the assessment; (l) if the answer to (j) is negative, why not; (m) with respect to nanotechnology products and their unique properties and behaviors particularly in their application to the modRNA vaccines, did HC examine (i) the safety, (ii) the effectiveness, (iii) the risk to the environment, (iv) its specific regulatory status; (n) if the answers to (m)(i) to (m)(iv) is affirmative, what were the assessment results; (o) if the answers to (m)(i) through (m)(iv) is negative, why not; (p) how do established safe levels of DNA apply, (i) when using pegylated LNPs as a delivery system, (ii) when a product that contains pegylated LNPs requires repeated dosing; and (q) what assessment was performed to assess the risk of residual DNA when using pegylated LNPs as a delivery system in a vaccine which requires repeated dosing?

[Privilege, October 21st, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, the question from the member for Calgary Rocky Ridge refers to something that I talked about in my speech.

I talked about the brazenness and the callousness with which the Liberal government operates, particularly the PMO and the Prime Minister. It is like it is with anything else as it starts off small. It started off with accepting a free vacation to the Aga Khan's Island. It started off with something small, and then it grew.

It is like a drug addict who starts off small. They start off with marijuana, which is something the Liberal government, coupled with the NDP, promoted and legalized. For most drug users I have talked to, it almost always started with marijuana, but it never ends there. It advances to cocaine, heroine and all these other very harmful drugs, such as opioids. I think people become numb after a while.

I think that is what has happened to the Liberals. They started out with small little scandals and have numbed their consciences. They have seared their consciences. They are not even capable of feeling guilt and remorse anymore. It is so sad, because there is hope for everybody, and I think there is hope for the Liberals too. Just let the sunshine in and—

[Privilege, October 21st, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is asking for clarification as to why we are here today.

We are here today debating this because we have asked that the SDTC, the Prime Minister, the PMO, the Liberal government, call it whatever we want, to hand over unredacted documents pertaining to the origin and destination of the $400 million that the Auditor General identified as being misappropriated. We want unredacted documents handed over to the RCMP. It is that simple.

If the government has nothing to hide, it can just let the sunshine in.

[Privilege, October 21st, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, I just want to reiterate what a fantastic question the member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke asked, as that really is the question.

Why not just call a carbon tax election? We will let Canadians decide if they trust the Liberals anymore and whether they want a total reset by putting Conservatives back in place. The Conservative Party is a party they can trust, a party with integrity, a party that gives them the hope that they will be able to take home powerful cheques that would provide for affordable housing and affordable fuel. Let us have a carbon tax election.

[Privilege, October 21st, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Winnipeg Centre asked the same question that the member for Winnipeg North did. I think she thinks she is in a different debate.

I will tell the member one thing. The member talks about her constituents, and within her constituency is an organization run by my good friend, Kent Dueck, which is called Inner City Youth Alive. For 25 years, he has worked with youth in the member's riding to bring them hope and healing from addiction and drugs. This last weekend, he received an award from Scott Gillingham, the mayor of the City of Winnipeg, for the good work he is doing in her riding, which she should be doing, and she is not.

There is another organization in her riding, which is run by Steve Paulson, called Adult and Teen Challenge. I visited it in the member's riding. It deals with individuals struggling with addictions to substances, alcohol and drugs, and crime. It is helping individuals to get out of that lifestyle, to get jobs and to become productive, contributing members of society.

That is what is happening in the member's riding, and she has nothing to do with that.

[Privilege, October 21st, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, I have heard the member for Winnipeg North ask that question over and over again today. What he is missing is that that is not what we are debating today. We are debating Sustainable Development Technology Canada's refusal to hand over the documents the RCMP has requested to investigate the corruption of the Liberal Party. It starts with the Prime Minister and his orders to his people. It starts with the Prime Minister's office and appointments to a corporation like that. That is where it starts. That is what we are debating today.

Conservatives are asking for the documents to be produced so Parliament can get back to work and the RCMP can investigate. If there is nothing to hide, let the sunshine in.