Burton Bailey
Red Deer, Alberta · Conservative · Canada
“Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his strong speech. After years of Liberal soft-on-crime policies that drove violent crimes up, Canadians are sadly paying the price in their communities every day, as he spoke of in his speech.”
“Mr. Speaker, the $300 million Liberal cover-up continues. Liberals at the health committee continue blocking the investigation into PrescribeIT and hoping Canadians forget about the scandal that is turning into a possible contempt of Parliament.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is week eight of the Liberals' obstruction at the health committee. They are desperately covering up the $300-million PrescribeIT scandal and the hundreds of millions wasted on a failed program that made Liberal insiders rich and did not fill prescriptions.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am going to ask the question that my other colleague asked. The Province of Nova Scotia leased this land for approximately $13,500 per year, yet through this federal agreement, Maritime Launch Services receives $55,000 every single day of the year.”
“Mr. Speaker, under international space law, Canada is the launching state and carries the full weight of legal and financial liability for any launch-related disasters.”
“Mr. Speaker, 74,000 rejected asylum claimants still in Canada whom the government refuses to deport are under the bloated interim federal health program. The Liberals rejected them for a reason.”
The complete record
Every one of 109 lines we hold for Burton Bailey, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 1 of 3.
“Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his strong speech. After years of Liberal soft-on-crime policies that drove violent crimes up, Canadians are sadly paying the price in their communities every day, as he spoke of in his speech. Conservatives improved Bill C‑14 with key amendments in the House, but the majority Liberal, Trudeau-appointed Senate has once again watered it down, prioritizing criminals' rights over public safety. Will my colleague join me in calling on the government to reject these weakening Senate amendments and restore the strong public safety version that Conservatives helped build?”
“Mr. Speaker, the $300 million Liberal cover-up continues. Liberals at the health committee continue blocking the investigation into PrescribeIT and hoping Canadians forget about the scandal that is turning into a possible contempt of Parliament. Even the Liberals were frustrated when they did not get answers from disgraced former CEO Michael Green, but then the Prime Minister yelled, “Be quiet,” and the cover-up began. When will the Liberals at the health committee find their spine and finally end the cover-up?”
“Mr. Speaker, under international space law, Canada is the launching state and carries the full weight of legal and financial liability for any launch-related disasters. Why are Canadian taxpayers being forced to socialize the risk of a catastrophic failure, while the potential financial gains are privatized for the benefit of corporate lobbyists and shareholders?”
“Mr. Speaker, I am going to ask the question that my other colleague asked. The Province of Nova Scotia leased this land for approximately $13,500 per year, yet through this federal agreement, Maritime Launch Services receives $55,000 every single day of the year. Will the member explain exactly how a 400,000% markup over the provincial lease rate serves the interest of the Canadian taxpayer?”
“Mr. Speaker, it is week eight of the Liberals' obstruction at the health committee. They are desperately covering up the $300-million PrescribeIT scandal and the hundreds of millions wasted on a failed program that made Liberal insiders rich and did not fill prescriptions. Angry Canadians are calling out the Liberals and asking them to stop the obstruction, but apparently they are more afraid of getting yelled at by the Prime Minister again. The Liberals must end this two-month cover-up so that the Conservatives can get the answers Canadians deserve. What are the Liberals hiding?”
“Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for his service. Two days ago, to much fanfare at CANSEC, the Prime Minister announced a deal to purchase military aircraft from Saab, which I believe is an affiliate company of Brookfield. Have they actually signed a deal, or is it another Liberal illusion?”
“Mr. Speaker, 74,000 rejected asylum claimants still in Canada whom the government refuses to deport are under the bloated interim federal health program. The Liberals rejected them for a reason. While Canada is the only G7 country in a recession, these fraudsters still get taxpayer-funded health care, such as physio and counselling, but Canadians do not. End the handouts, and the fraudsters will go. When will the Liberal government cut the supplementary health care handout for fake refugee fugitives and finally deport them?”
“Mr. Speaker, yesterday the minister confirmed she has no clue where nearly 30,000 rejected asylum claimants with active deportation orders are. These people are wanted by the government and are hiding from authorities, therefore they are breaking the law. Yet all of them are still entitled to better health care than Canadians. It is more costs, more waste, more corruption and more of the same. This Prime Minister is just another costly Liberal. Why does this Liberal government continue to let thousands of fake refugee fugitives freeload luxury health coverage on the backs of struggling families?”
“Mr. Speaker, 74,000, three‑quarters the size of Red Deer, is the number of rejected refugees still in Canada getting luxury, taxpayer-funded health care that Canadians can only dream of. They are supposed to be deported, not given better care than those paying for it. Worse, the Liberal government has lost track of 28,000 of these fraudsters. They have vanished into our communities and are still billing Canadians. Where are these 28,000 fraudsters, and when will the Liberal government deport them?”
“We need to ensure that the pre-approval list would be reserved for genuine cases of unmet need, not be used as a shortcut for pharmaceutical companies looking to avoid regulatory review. The broad criteria have potential to invite targeted lobbying efforts, which could be a loophole for pharmaceutical companies to exploit. We need to address this in committee. (1345) While we are at it, let us name the elephant in the room. The reason we need this bill at all is that the Health Canada bureaucracy has made the existing special access program so administratively burdensome that clinicians are drowning in paperwork while their patients deteriorate. The Liberal government and the bureaucrats at Health Canada have built a system that puts—”
“A pharmaceutical company with a product that is approved in another country but lacks Canadian approval could fund an undefined non-profit health organization. That organization could then submit the product for inclusion on the pre-approved list. Once it is on the list, the manufacturer could sell the product directly to Canadian practitioners without ever going through the safety and efficacy reviews required for full Health Canada approval. They would avoid the cost and the scrutiny that exists in Canada. The bill would require that products meet “appropriate quality and safety standards”, but it does not define what those standards are or who would verify them. It says that the minister may require manufacturers to explain why they are not pursuing full approval, but “may” is not “must”.”
“Those restrictions were undone by the Trudeau government. Now, under Bill C-265 as currently drafted, there would be nothing stopping the minister from placing substances such as heroin on the pre-approved list, from which any qualified practitioner could order it directly. Third, the pre-approved list could become a back door for drug manufacturers seeking to bypass the standard Health Canada regulatory approval process. The sponsor of the bill has publicly acknowledged this concern himself. The bill would allow not just practitioners but also pharmacists, hospitals and medical non-profit organizations, which is an undefined term, to submit products for the list. Here is how this could be exploited.”
“That means substances like pharmaceutical-grade heroin could potentially be placed on this list. There would be a removal mechanism for misuse and diversion, but inclusion should never be possible in the first place. Some members of the House may recall that this is not a theoretical concern. In 2013, when Rona Ambrose served as minister of health under former prime minister Harper, she took decisive action to restrict special access program approvals for substances like pharmaceutical heroin. At that time, drug enablement advocates were using the special access program to expand access to substances such as heroin. Minister Ambrose recognized the public health risk that special access program authorization for heroin could normalize the prescription of addictive substances in the name of harm reduction or safe supply.”
“However, we have concerns about several provisions that require amendment before we could offer unqualified support. Let me be clear about what worries us. First, the bill would create a presumption of approval for a letter of authorization when two specialist clinicians submit a joint treatment plan. That sounds reasonable on the surface, but there would be no requirement for those two clinicians to be independent of each other or independent of the treating practitioner. This would open the door to rubber-stamping by associate colleagues, and it could undermine the entire purpose of requiring multiple clinicians to attest. Second, the bill contains no explicit exclusions for controlled substances from either the letter of authorization process or the pre-approved list.”
“(1340) To be eligible for this list, a product must have previously received a letter of authorization, have previously held an authorization that was not cancelled for safety reasons, or be currently authorized by a comparable foreign regulator. In other words, these are drugs that we already know work, that trusted peer regulators have already vetted. An independent expert advisory committee would have to be consulted before any changes are made to the list. The bill would also codify the criteria for issuing emergency letters of authorization so doctors would not be denied these letters for frivolous bureaucratic reasons. Conservatives recognize the challenges with the special access program, we support making access to life-saving care easier and we support the bill's advancing to committee.”
“Most arrive up to six years later than in the United States and Europe. Six years is a childhood. What would Bill C-265 do? It proposes a reform to this broken system. First, it would affirm something that should frankly go without saying, that a licensed physician may administer a lawfully available therapeutic product in an emergency when it represents their best clinical judgment. We should not need legislation to say this, yet here we are. Second, and this is at the heart of the bill, it would require the minister of health to establish and publicly maintain a pre-approved list of non-marketed therapeutic products for serious or life-threatening conditions. Products on this list could be ordered by practitioners directly, without going through the current case-by-case approval process.”
“A pediatric oncologist who has prescribed the same drug for the same rare condition 17 times still has to submit a fresh application for patient number 18 and wait for a Health Canada reviewer to tell them what they already know: that the drug is safe, that it works and that the child needs it. For routinely accessed therapies, the special access program serves no function beyond introducing delays and unnecessary administrative burden. When a special access program application is denied, families and clinicians are left with gut-wrenching choices: forgo treatment entirely, enter into a clinical trial program or uproot their lives to seek care outside Canada. According to the Canadian Organization for Rare Disorders, only 60% of rare disease treatments even make it to Canada.”
“Often the reason why these drugs have not been approved through the normal process is simple: Canada is not a large enough market to justify the cost of the full regulatory submission. Health Canada's regulations, meant to keep Canadians safe, are also making it nearly impossible for many people to access the treatment they need in order to survive. For a rare disease especially, the patient population is too small. Canada may never be commercially attractive enough to bother. Every single one still requires a brand new application from scratch for each individual patient. Think about what that means.”
“Health Canada's special access program was designed with a noble purpose: to provide Canadians who have exhausted all available treatments with access to non-marketed drugs that are proven safe and effective elsewhere. It receives more than 16,000 applications per year, more than 1,000 every single month. It is a necessary program to ensure that Canadians can access the medications they require. Here is the issue. A significant number of those applications are for drugs that are well established, that have been approved in trusted foreign jurisdictions and that Canadian clinicians have already successfully requested through this very same program, sometimes dozens of times.”
“The application needed revision. More time passed, and Emma's condition progressed. Her parents, who had already spent months fighting for a diagnosis, now spent every waking hour on the phone, chasing approvals and begging for clarity from a bureaucratic apparatus that seemed entirely indifferent to the fact that on the other end of this paperwork was a little girl whose window for treatment was closing. By the time the approval came through, Emma had lost ground she would never recover. Emma's story is not unique. It happens across this country to children and adults alike, and it is happening because of a system that prioritizes a bureaucratic process over patients.”
“Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-265 , an act to amend the Food and Drug Act with respect to a list of therapeutic products pre-approved for special access. I want to start by telling the House about a child. Let us call her Emma. She is a seven-year-old girl diagnosed with a rare metabolic disorder that has no approved treatment available in Canada, yet her physician knew exactly what drug she needed. It had been approved in the United States and used successfully in Europe. Peer-reviewed literature supported its use. The benefits were proven. Emma's doctor filled out the forms to get permission to use the non-approved drug through what is called the special access program. They submitted the request, then waited and waited. Health Canada's special access program came back with questions. More documentation was required.”
“Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his work on this private member's bill. It is very important work. Former health minister Rona Ambrose banned substances, such as heroin and other dangerous drugs, from the special access program, stating that the Government of Canada puts the safety and security of Canadians first. Is there anything in the legislation that would restrict non-marketed drugs, such as prescription-grade heroin, from being added to the pre-approved list of therapeutic products?”
“Mr. Speaker, it is week three of Liberal obstruction at the health committee on the $300-million prescribeIT scandal. The Liberals are desperately shielding their buddies and covering up a decade-long disaster of failed programs that did not fill prescriptions but padded the pockets of Liberal insiders. Now the Liberals want to reward failure by giving Canada Health Infoway even more cash to blow in the future. Canadians are done with the Liberal money-laundering schemes. When will the Liberals end the obstruction so Conservatives can get accountability for Canadians?”
“Madam Speaker, Canadians do not want Liberal spin. They want to know where and why their money was wasted. Take Michael Green, the disgraced former CEO of Canada Health Infoway. He was paid over $800,000 a year for more than a decade to run that failed program. These Liberals are now shielding him from committee for the scandal. Conservatives will not be silenced. We will not stop demanding answers on why $300 million in tax dollars was abused by this government. Michael Green was the first to take the fall for these Liberals, so my question is, who is next?”
“Madam Speaker, all week at the health committee, Liberals tried to block and silence Conservatives from getting answers on the $300-million PrescribeIT scandal. They have no problems shutting down debate, covering up and protecting Liberal insiders who got rich off the backs of Canadians. I guess this is the new normal that Liberals always wanted, but Conservatives will never stop asking these Liberals the tough questions they want to hide from. Canadians deserve to know: Where did the $300 million go and who got rich?”
“The safety of Canadians is non-partisan, and justice for victims is not political. I urge all members of the House to learn about Melanie's law and to come together to support Melanie.”
“Mr. Speaker, this week I introduced Bill C-275 , Melanie's law, named after Melanie from Red Deer, a woman who suffered a truly devastating violation. In a past relationship, she was drugged and sexually assaulted, and the assault was secretly filmed and shared online, all without her knowledge. The betrayal and trauma she endured is heartbreaking. Tragically, Melanie is not alone. An investigation uncovered a disturbing network of abusers who commit these vile crimes and spread the material around the world. When Melanie's story was shared with me, I was horrified. As parliamentarians, we have a duty to protect vulnerable Canadians and deliver justice for victims. Bill C-275 would make it a criminal offence to create, distribute or possess sexual assault material.”
“I urge all members of the House to support Melanie's law and deliver justice for Melanie and for the many others who have suffered in silence. (Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)”
“Imagine the anguish a loving husband feels upon discovering that his wife, the most important person in his life, was victimized without her knowledge, a profound violation that leaves justice feeling painfully out of reach. At the same time, his heart breaks for the unimaginable pain she endured, her peace of mind and sense of safety stolen from her. Hearing their story, I felt compelled to help bring justice for Melanie and to do whatever I can to help heal their hurt. Melanie's law would put victims' rights first. It would create a definition of sexual assault material in the Criminal Code and make it a criminal offence to create, distribute or possess such material. We have a duty to ensure that people who commit these horrific crimes face real consequences and that victims are never treated as secondary to their abusers.”
“Bill C-275. Introduction and first reading moved for leave to introduce Bill C-275, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (sexual assault material) . He said: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce Melanie's law, my first private member's bill, to bring justice for victims of sexual assault. The inspiration for the bill unfortunately arises from a feeling of dread. When a resident of Red Deer, someone I consider a friend, reached out to tell me about a network of abusers in Canada who drug their intimate partners, sexually assault them, film the assaults and distribute the videos online, I was shocked, not only because I learned that this is happening but also because it happened to my friend, the constituent's wife, in a previous relationship.”
“Mr. Speaker, I, too, have something in common. My riding is next to Battle River—Crowfoot . One of the things that I learned in August was the expense related to the longest ballot and the extra staff that were required. I wonder if you could comment or know anything more about how difficult it is to make that ballot and the expense that it added. We keep hearing about how these by-elections cost so much money. Can you comment?”
“Mr. Speaker, the Liberals should have to look in the eye the Canadians who cannot access health care, facing such long waits in hospitals that they are dying, and tell them that their place in the system they pay for is being bumped by a fake refugee taking advantage of them. As much as the minister enjoys manipulating what is said, the reality is that Canadians are getting worse health care than the scammers are. Rejected refugees, rejected for whatever reason, should not be in Canada, and they certainly should not be getting better health care than Canadians. When will it end?”
“Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Minister of Immigration had the gall to say that it is perfectly fine for Canadians to fund health care for scammers, rejected refugees claimants, because it is just “0.2% of the total health spending”. That is unbelievable. Over the past decade, more than 130,000 failed asylum claimants received better health care than Canadian taxpayers footing the $275‑million bill. Why is this acceptable to the Liberal government?”
“Mr. Speaker, six million Canadians without access to a family doctor will not be lectured by the Liberals while their own tax dollars are being abused and they cannot get the proper care they need. The fact is that non-citizens whose asylum claims have been rejected have no reason to be in this country and should not benefit from better health care than Canadians. When will the Prime Minister admit he has lost control of immigration and stop letting scammers treat Canada as a walk-in clinic?”
“Mr. Speaker, yesterday it was revealed that Canadians paid over $275 million on health care for 130,000 rejected refugee claimants in the past 10 years. When bogus refugees and scammers are benefiting from a health care system they do not pay into and are receiving additional care that Canadians do not, such as vision care, counselling, home care and physiotherapy, something is wrong. When will the Prime Minister put Canadians first and stop scammers from taking advantage of our system?”
“Mr. Speaker, Red Deer exceeded housing starts for two straight years by cutting bureaucracy and using common-sense solutions. This is exactly what Conservatives have been calling for. Under our Conservative plan, cities like Red Deer would be rewarded for building homes. Instead, the Liberal one-size-fits-all approach punishes mid-size cities like Red Deer while funnelling resources to Liberal vote-rich strongholds where homebuilding dropped. Will the minister commit today to stop punishing Red Deer, scrap the failed Liberal scheme and adopt the Conservative plan to build homes, not bureaucracy?”
“If it really wants to help those suffering from addictions, it must repeal the failed policies that have killed more Canadians than World War II. Only then can we bring our loved ones home drug-free.”
“Mr. Speaker, a landmark scientific study was released detailing the failures of the Liberals' so-called safe supply of hard drugs. It confirms what Conservatives already knew: Drug consumption sites are not the answer to Canada's addiction crisis. Since the closure of the consumption site in Red Deer, new data confirms that there has been a significant increase in opioid treatment, with no increase in emergency room visits or mortality. The findings are clear. Enabling those suffering from addiction to continue to be poisoned is not the answer. Instead, we must support these individuals with real treatment. The Liberal government is responsible for approving these sites by granting exemptions under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.”
“Mr. Speaker, Canada should be standing ready to provide our energy both within our borders and to global allies, but a decade of Liberals' “leave it in the ground” policies have hampered our energy industry, divided our country and left Canada as the only G7 country without a strategic oil stockpile. Conservatives have a plan for a strategic energy and mineral reserve to control the distribution of our resources around the world. Will the Liberals adopt our Conservative plan so we can be stronger at home and build unbreakable leverage abroad?”
“Mr. Speaker, Canadians need affordable housing, but pumping billions of dollars into a new corporation is just growing the bureaucracy instead of getting homes built. With Canadians struggling in a productivity crisis of the Liberals' making, can my colleague comment on why the government is creating another government job factory instead of getting houses built?”
“Mr. Speaker, the member opposite speaks highly about the bill, but let us be honest, it is more bureaucracy: paying tax dollars to a bloated board of directors, all appointed by the government. How does the member justify adding this layer of bureaucracy when Canadians are crying out for more actual homes, not more Liberal insiders with big salaries?”
“Mr. Speaker, I rise to present this petition on behalf of my constituents calling on the government to support Bill C-218 . The petitioners write that Canadians with mental illnesses should be provided with treatment and support, that mental illness is complex and can include suicidal thoughts as symptoms, and that the lives of Canadians with mental illnesses will be at risk when they are eligible for medical assistance in dying on the basis of mental illness alone, especially when treatment and support are not readily available. Therefore, the petitioners call on the House of Commons to support Bill C-218 , which would reverse the law extending eligibility for MAID to people with a mental illness as their sole medical condition.”
“Veterans who served our country and young people battling mental health crises are offered nothing by the Liberal government, but rejected refugees get tax-funded psychologists and therapists. A nation that refuses to put its own citizens first is deeply disturbing. I urge the Liberals to reflect on what kind of message their vote will send to Canadians on the—”
“Mr. Speaker, the Canadian health care system is in crisis. Six million Canadians do not have a family doctor, and wait times have doubled over the past 10 years. However, rather than putting Canadians' health first, the Liberal government's interim federal health program allows fraudulent and rejected asylum claimants to be bumped to the front of the line while Canadians pay for it. The Parliamentary Budget Officer says the IFHP will cost $1.5 billion annually to pay for supplementary coverage like vision, counselling and home care. These are things that Canadians do not receive, yet Liberals make them pay for it. The fraudsters are taking advantage of our generosity.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am very proud of the work the health committee is doing. Canadians would otherwise not even know about the 86,000 asylum claimants who should have been deported and are claiming health benefits. Some of them are receiving very expensive procedures. Some of them are receiving cancer treatments that they should be receiving in their home country after being deported. I want to make it clear that Conservatives support regulated and legitimate refugee claims. People who are legitimately fleeing war and persecution deserve compassion. We, as the Conservative Party, do support that compassion.”
“Madam Speaker, I want to thank my Bloc colleague. As a proud Albertan, I believe our two provinces share much in common. To answer the member's question, I must say that there are many things I would have to ask the shadow critic about, because I sit on the health committee. I am disappointed that the Bloc members are not going to support us on the motion. In committee, we hear all the time about how they want more money for health care, and here we are coming up with some solutions. This could means thousands more doctors in Canada, but they are going to block this Conservative motion. As for the member's request, I would ask him to ask one of my colleagues who would have better information. On the health care side, the Bloc members keep asking for more money, so they should support the motion.”
“Madam Speaker, it is a coincidence that the member mentions that the PBO report does not include provisions in Bill C-12 . That is why the Conservatives moved a motion at committee calling for an updated PBO report that would include the provisions of Bill C-12, as well as further important details that the Government of Canada seems to have no clue about, including the number of fraudulent asylum claims, the number of claims that have been denied where people are still receiving health care, and the number of people who should have been deported but are still in Canada. Liberal members at the health committee were delaying and filibustering the motion even though they were also calling for an updated report. The member should encourage his Liberal colleagues to stop obstructing Parliament, work with us and get this project done.”
“We hear testimony at committee that the federal government has no oversight or accountability for billing under the IFHP, meaning that health care providers could bill up to five times the amount they can for a Canadian. This incentivizes abuse at the provider point, as fraudulent health care claimants could be treated before Canadians.”
“At the midpoint, while these fraudulent asylum claims are being processed, taxpayer-funded resources like housing and health care are being provided to these fraudsters. At the end point, whether or not the Immigration and Refugee Board decides to do its job properly to screen applications, the problem is twofold: The backlog could grow because of slow processing and more fraudulent claims, or the IRB could decide to turn a blind eye and rubber-stamp anyone and everyone. The interim federal health program is a symptom of a much greater problem. For a decade, our immigration system has been abused and, in turn, has turned our health care system into an unworkable mess.”
“It is both compassionate and fair. Unfortunately, we have heard at other parliamentary committees and through news reports that rather than enforcing our laws and ensuring fraudulent claims are not valid, nearly 25,000 refugee claimants were admitted without a single in-person interview by the IRB and its file review policy. That is not right. It is federal bureaucrats avoiding responsibility so they do not have to do the paperwork. It is potentially dangerous for Canadian public safety and also incentivizes more abuse from fraudsters who know they will be able to game the system. Canada has a problem at every point of the immigration system. At the starting point, our streams are being overwhelmed by fraudulent claims of asylum.”