Colin Carrie

[Questions on the Order Paper, June 19th, 2024]

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?

[Questions on the Order Paper, June 19th, 2024]

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?

[Carbon Tax, June 14th, 2024]

Madam Speaker, over two years ago, the Liberal MP for Whitby committed candour. He accidentally told Canadians the truth, that the radical Liberal net-zero plan would intentionally cause Canadians pain. Now Canadians know what the Liberals have been hiding all along.

For weeks now, the Liberals have been refusing to provide their secret report on the cost of the carbon tax to Canadian families. This is a desperate and malicious attempt to hide their own data that shows that Canadians are worse off under the disastrous, inflationary carbon tax. The carbon tax pain will cost nearly $2,000 per household in lost GDP, a $30.5-billion hit to our economy.

For years now, the radical environment minister has told Canadians that the carbon tax was making them richer, while the exact opposite was true, and they knew it all along. When will the radical environment minister resign and the government release its secret carbon tax report?

[Carbon Pricing, June 7th, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, I guess the member ran on a platform of record cover-ups and corruption, but Canadians are sick and tired of the NDP-Liberal government. It silences anyone who does not go along with its narrative.

The government is covering up for Liberal insiders who are benefiting from exploiting the green slush fund. It is covering up the shameful inappropriate awarding of contracts to McKinsey, as well as the names of MPs who are involved in foreign interference. Now it is silencing the Parliamentary Budget Officer.

Again, when will the government release the secret report that proves Canadians are right?

[Carbon Pricing, June 7th, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, after nine years, the NDP-Liberal Prime Minister is simply not worth the cost. When asked about reaching their climate goals, the Liberal member for Whitby admitted that they knew their policies would be difficult and painful for Canadians. Now we know that their carbon tax climate policy confirms this, as documented in a secret report that has been covered up by putting a gag order on their budget watchdog.

When will the government quit using its unbelievable talking points and release this secret report that proves Canadians are right?

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, May 31st, 2024]

With regard to Health Canada (HC), the Public Health Agency of Canada (PHAC) or the National Advisory Committee on Immunization (NACI) and the COVID-19 vaccines: (a) when did the (i) Chief Public Health Officer, (ii) Deputy Chief Public Health Officer, (iii) Chief Medical Officer at Health Canada, (iv) Minister of Health at the time, become aware that the COVID-19 vaccines did not prevent transmission of SARS CoV-2; (b) when were any of the federal health agencies in Canada made aware of this information and by who; (c) when was the information described in (a) delivered to (i) the Office of the Prime Minister, (ii) the Privy Council, (iii) the Cabinet, (iv) the members of the House of Commons; (d) what federal entity, ministry or minister first initiated the concept of “COVID-19 vaccine passports”; (e) on what date did the federal government implement vaccine passports for (i) federal employees, (ii) travel restrictions for all unvaccinated Canadians; (f) in 2021 and 2022, did any personnel from HC, PHAC or NACI engage with or share information about the vaccines’ inability to stop transmission of SARS-CoV-2 with any person involved with (i) the World Health Organization’s Strategic Group of Experts, (ii) Vaccines Together, (iii) the International Vaccine Institute, (iv) Dr. Hanna Nohynek, the World Health Organization’s Chair of Strategic Group of Experts on Immunization; and (g) if the answers to (f)(i) through to (f)(iv) are affirmative, what were the summaries of those discussions or correspondences in relation to the transmission question and the validity of vaccine passports?

[Taxation, May 31st, 2024]

Madam Speaker, in Durham Region, for years the rite of passage included spending a week with mom and dad at Darlington Provincial Park, with camping, roasting marshmallows and hot dogs, and the famous sing-alongs.

According to the out-of-touch Liberals, kids are rebelling and demanding that their parents cancel their summer vacation and immediately take them to the dentist. Yes, according to the Minister of Health, kids would prefer to say no to spending time with their loved ones this summer and instead have their teeth drilled and filled. Whose kids are the Liberals talking to?

Yes, we all know that dental health is important, but this is not an either-or question. Sadly, this summer many Oshawa families will not be able to afford a local staycation because of the Liberals' out-of-touch tax-and-spend agenda. When the Liberal MP for Whitby stated that their net-zero goals were going to cause pain, is this what they were talking about?

Why does the NDP-Liberal government not axe the carbon tax and lift the taxes on gasoline so Canadians can save that extra $670 over the summer and afford a traditional family camping trip with the kids?

[Pharmacare Act, May 30th, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague mentioned two important points that are missing here. One is that it was a top-down approach and there was a lack of consultation. The other is how many provincial ministers actually asked about it.

One of the things the member touched on that I thought was really important is that many people in his province have very good coverage already. My question for the member is this: If it becomes a top-down approach, why does he fear the federal government would make it worse for the people who are doing good on their medication?

[Pharmacare Act, May 30th, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, I am wondering if the member could comment on the fact that Ontario, where I come from, does have a program. Quebec has a great program. Will the program presented by the federal government cover more or fewer medications for Quebeckers?

[Pharmacare Act, May 30th, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, I cannot believe how easy it is to fool the NDP. We heard the NDP member stand up to talk about universal pharmacare. We have this bill in front of us, and it is covering two important things, which are contraception and medication for diabetes, but it is being promoted as universal pharmacare.

What does my colleague from Edmonton think Canadians are going to think about this? Again, this is another promise that is not being fulfilled, but the way it is being presented is really deceptive. What does he think Canadians are going to think about that?