Connect with us

COVID-19

Canadian gov’t admits it gambled in deal with COVID vaccine maker that lost $150 million

Published

1 year ago

8 minute read

From LifeSiteNews

By Anthony Murdoch

A contract with Medicago Inc. called for 76 million doses of its own COVID shot to be made, but not one was ever delivered.

Canada’s Public Works department admitted that it took a massive gamble with taxpayer money that resulted in a loss of $150 million of taxpayer money after Quebec-based Medicago Inc.’s plan to build a COVID jab factory using federal funding failed to materialize.

On Monday, the Department of Public Works said it took a “risk” in subsidizing Medicago’s factory, which of note is in the Québec City riding of its own Minister Jean-Yves Duclos.

“We took a risk of putting contracts with various suppliers for enough vaccines for all Canadians,” admitted Joelle Paquette, who serves as the director general with the public works department while testifying before the House of Commons health committee on Monday.

Medicago’s failed contract called for 76 million doses of its own COVID jab to be made. However, not one was ever delivered. Medicago is a subsidiary of Japan-based Mitsubishi Chemical Group.

Last month, LifeSiteNews reported on how the House of Commons health committee has been demanding answers into how more than $300 million of taxpayer money was lost on failed COVID jab ventures with pharmaceutical companies.

It was recently revealed that the Public Health Agency of Canada (PHAC) lost $150 million on an unfulfilled COVID jab contract with an undisclosed entity in 2022. In addition, $173 million given to Medicago Inc., which said it would be shutting down in 2023 due to a failed development of its own plant-based COVID shot, is now lost.

Health Canada only approved mRNA-based COVID shots made in other countries, such as Pfizer’s and Moderna’s, as well as one from Johnson & Johnson.

In September, Health Canada approved a revised Moderna mRNA-based COVID shot despite research showing that 1 in 35 recipients of the booster ended up with myocardial damage.

In 2021, Duclos had gloated to the House of Commons that he had the “privilege of having Medicago in my riding.”

In reply, Paquette said, “Medicago owns the intellectual property.”

Perkins said that it is “just unbelievable” how the failed contract was allowed to proceed, with apparently no accountability.

Paquette admitted that the contact was not normal.

“We did not know at the time which vaccines would actually be authorized,” said Paquette, adding that there was “no vaccine that existed at the time we put these contracts in place. We took a risk.”

Andrea Andrachuk, another director general with the Department of Public Works, said that the $150 million was given to Medicago under a 2020 Advance Purchase Agreement. However, this contract was voided after Medicago announced last February that it was closing the plant.

Andrachuk noted how “Medicago was also facing product challenges and delivery date challenges” and that talks were underway to “revisit the contract.”

“The parent company Mitsubishi announced it was going to discontinue its activities in North America,” she said.

However, as part of the payment terms, a “150 million non-refundable advance payment” was made to Japan-based Medicago in “accordance with the Advance Purchase Agreement,” Andrachuk added.

“Medicago met all terms for the payment,” Andrachuk noted.

However, MPs were told that the terms of the Advance Purchase Agreement were secret. This prompted Bloc Québécois MP Julie Vignola to ask, “Could you tell us something about those conditions?”

In response, Andrachuk said, “No I cannot,” claiming that at the time there was “a lot of risk.”

“We didn’t know which vaccines if any would get Health Canada approval and even if they did, when they would be available,” Andrachuk claimed.

The government of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau spent some $8 billion on vaccines, with Pfizer alone getting a large chunk of that money. Health Canada ordered 238 million COVID injections from Pfizer Canada, which includes some 30 million for 2023 and 2024.

LifeSiteNews recently reported on how the details of the Canadian federal government’s COVID-19 vaccine contract with Pfizer for millions of doses of the mRNA-based experimental shots was recently disclosed after been hidden for over three years.

The contract with Pfizer shows the government agreed to accept the unknown long-term safety and efficacy of the shots. The details of the Pfizer contract do not disclose how much the government spent on the jabs.

The Trudeau government also signed COVID-19 contracts with AstraZeneca, Johnson & Johnson, Medicago, Moderna, Novavax, and Sanofi. According to industry rates, the average price of a shot when sold to the United States was $19.50.

Trudeau’s government pushed COVID jabs on people with help of provincial governments

The COVID shots were heavily promoted by the Trudeau government, with the help of all provincial governments. During the so-called COVID pandemic, Trudeau referred to those who chose not to get the experimental COVID shots as terrible people.

In 2021, Trudeau said Canadians “vehemently opposed to vaccination” do “not believe in science,” are “often misogynists, often racists,” and questioned whether Canada should continue to “tolerate these people.”

In April, he came under fire after claiming he did not “force” anyone to take the COVID-19 shots.

There is mounting evidence that mRNA-based COVID injections carry extreme risks, including for children.

A recent study done by researchers at the Canada-based Correlation Research in the Public Interest  found that 17 countries have a “definite causal link” between peaks in all-cause mortality and the fast rollouts of the COVID shots and boosters.

LifeSiteNews reported last month how the Polyomavirus Simian Virus 40 (SV40), which is a monkey-linked DNA sequence known to cause cancer when it was used in old polio vaccines, has been confirmed by Health Canada to be present in the Pfizer COVID shot, a fact that was not disclosed by the vaccine maker to officials.

Canada’s Conservative Party, although silent early on during the COVID crisis, later came out opposing COVID mandates.

A recent bill championed by party leader Pierre Poilievre that would have given Canadians back their “bodily autonomy” by banning future jab mandates was voted down after Trudeau’s Liberals and other parties rejected it.

Adverse effects from the first round of COVID shots have resulted in a growing number of Canadians filing for financial compensation over injuries from the jabs via the federal Vaccine Injury Program (VISP).

VISP has already paid over $6 million to those injured by COVID injections, with 2,000 claims remaining to be settled.

Related Topics:

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

More from this author
Daily Caller / 12 hours ago

LNG Farce Sums Up Four Years Of Ridiculous Biden Energy Policy

armed forces / 12 hours ago

Canada among NATO members that could face penalties for lack of military spending

National / 13 hours ago

Canadian gov’t budget report targets charitable status of pro-life groups, churches

COVID-19

Former Trudeau minister faces censure for ‘deliberately lying’ about Emergencies Act invocation

Published on December 20, 2024

By

From LifeSiteNews

By Christina Maas of Reclaim The Net

Trudeau’s former public safety minister, Marco Mendicino, finds himself at the center of controversy as the Canadian Parliament debates whether to formally censure him for ‘deliberately lying’ about the justification for invoking the Emergencies Act.

Trudeau’s former public safety minister, Marco Mendicino, finds himself at the center of controversy as the Canadian Parliament debates whether to formally censure him for “deliberately lying” about the justification for invoking the Emergencies Act and freezing the bank accounts of civil liberties supporters during the 2022 Freedom Convoy protests.

Conservative MP Glen Motz, a vocal critic, emphasized the importance of accountability, stating, “Parliament deserves to receive clear and definitive answers to questions. We must be entitled to the truth.”

The Emergencies Act, invoked on February 14, 2022, granted sweeping powers to law enforcement, enabling them to arrest demonstrators, conduct searches, and freeze the financial assets of those involved in or supported, the trucker-led protests. However, questions surrounding the legality of its invocation have lingered, with opposition parties and legal experts criticizing the move as excessive and unwarranted.

On Thursday, Mendicino faced calls for censure after Blacklock’s Reporter revealed formal accusations of contempt of Parliament against him. The former minister, who was removed from cabinet in 2023, stands accused of misleading both MPs and the public by falsely claiming that the decision to invoke the Emergencies Act was based on law enforcement advice. A final report on the matter contradicts his testimony, stating, “The Special Joint Committee was intentionally misled.”

Mendicino’s repeated assertions at the time, including statements like, “We invoked the Emergencies Act after we received advice from law enforcement,” have been flatly contradicted by all other evidence. Despite this, he has yet to publicly challenge the allegations.

The controversy deepened as documents and testimony revealed discrepancies in the government’s handling of the crisis. While Attorney General Arif Virani acknowledged the existence of a written legal opinion regarding the Act’s invocation, he cited solicitor-client privilege to justify its confidentiality. Opposition MPs, including New Democrat Matthew Green, questioned the lack of transparency. “So you are both the client and the solicitor?” Green asked, to which Virani responded, “I wear different hats.”

The invocation of the Act has since been ruled unconstitutional by a federal court, a decision the Trudeau government is appealing. Critics argue that the lack of transparency and apparent misuse of power set a dangerous precedent. The Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms echoed these concerns, emphasizing that emergency powers must be exercised only under exceptional circumstances and with a clear legal basis.

Reprinted with permission from Reclaim The Net.

Continue Reading

COVID-19

Australian doctor who criticized COVID jabs has his suspension reversed

Published on December 20, 2024

By

From LifeSiteNews

By David James

‘I am free, I am no longer suspended. I can prescribe Ivermectin, and most importantly – and this is what AHPRA is most afraid of – I can criticize the vaccines freely … as a medical practitioner of this country,’ said COVID critic Dr. William Bay.

A long-awaited decision regarding the suspension of the medical registration of Dr William Bay by the Medical Board of Australia has been handed down by the Queensland Supreme Court. Justice Thomas Bradley overturned the suspension, finding that Bay had been subject to “bias and failure to afford fair process” over complaints unrelated to his clinical practice.

The case was important because it reversed the brutal censorship of medical practitioners, which had forced many doctors into silence during the COVID crisis to avoid losing their livelihoods.

Bay and his supporters were jubilant after the decision. “The judgement in the matter of Bay versus AHPRA (Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency) and the state of Queensland has just been handed down, and we have … absolute and complete victory,” he proclaimed outside the court. “I am free, I am no longer suspended. I can prescribe Ivermectin, and most importantly – and this is what AHPRA is most afraid of – I can criticize the vaccines freely … as a medical practitioner of this country.”

Bay went on: “The vaccines are bad, the vaccines are no good, and people should be afforded the right to informed consent to choose these so-called vaccines. Doctors like me will be speaking out because we have nothing to fear.”

Bay added that the judge ruled not only to reinstate his registration, but also set aside the investigation into him, deeming it invalid. He also forced AHPRA to pay the legal costs. “Everything is victorious for myself, and I praise God,” he said.

The Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency (AHPRA), which partners the Medical Board of Australia, is a body kept at arm’s length from the government to prevent legal and political accountability. It was able to decide which doctors could be deregistered for allegedly not following the government line. If asked questions about its decisions AHPRA would reply that it was not a Commonwealth agency so there was no obligation to respond.

The national board of AHPRA is composed of two social workers, one accountant, one physiotherapist, one mathematician and three lawyers. Even the Australian Medical Association, which also aggressively threatened dissenting doctors during COVID, has objected to its role. Vice-president Dr Chris Moy described the powers given to AHPRA as being “in the realms of incoherent zealotry”.

This was the apparatus that Bay took on, and his victory is a significant step towards allowing medical practitioners to voice their concerns about Covid and the vaccines. Until now, most doctors, at least those still in a job, have had to keep any differing views to themselves. As Bay suggests, that meant they abrogated their duty to ensure patients gave informed consent.

Justice Bradley said the AHPRA board’s regulatory role did not “include protection of government and regulatory agencies from political criticism.” To that extent the decision seems to allow freedom of speech for medical practitioners. But AHPRA still has the power to deregister doctors without any accountability. And if there is one lesson from Covid it is that bureaucrats in the Executive branch have little respect for legal or ethical principles.

It is to be hoped that Australian medicos who felt forced into silence now begin to speak out about the vaccines, the mandating of which has coincided with a dramatic rise in all-cause mortality in heavily vaccinated countries around the world, including Australia. This may prove psychologically difficult, though, because those doctors would then have to explain why they have changed their position, a discussion they will no doubt prefer to avoid.

The Bay decision has implications for the way the three arms of government: the legislature, the executive and the judiciary, function in Australia. There are supposed to be checks and balances, but the COVID crisis revealed that, when put under stress, the separation of powers does not work well, or at all.

During the crisis the legislature routinely passed off its responsibilities to the executive branch, which removed any voter influence because bureaucrats are not elected. The former premier of Victoria, Daniel Andrews, went a step further by illegitimately giving himself and the Health Minister positions in the executive branch, when all they were entitled to was roles in the legislature as members of the party in power. This appalling move resulted in the biggest political protests ever seen in Melbourne, yet the legislation passed anyway.

The legislature’s abrogation of responsibility left the judiciary as the only branch of government able to address the abuse of Australia’s foundational political institutions. To date, the judges have disappointed. But the Bay decision may be a sign of better things to come.

READ: Just 24% of Americans plan to receive the newest COVID shot: poll

Continue Reading

Trending

X