Dan Mazier
Riding Mountain, Manitoba · Conservative · Canada
“Any policy on this front must consider the spectrum that has already been licensed under weaker deployment requirements, because those terms and conditions were already agreed to and were reflected in the purchase price. Obviously, the telecommunications companies will oppose any accelerated deployment requirements.”
“Today we manage spectrum mostly through auctions, where the government sells telecommunications companies the right to use these public airwaves. That is a reasonable way to assign spectrum, but selling a spectrum licence is not the same as solving a problem of coverage.”
“In the government's recent 3,800‑megahertz spectrum auction, the licensing decision set a deployment requirement of just 5% population coverage within seven years for the Gander and Grand Falls-Windsor service area in Newfoundland, a region covering more than 144,000 people.”
“Mr. Speaker, before I begin, I want to take a moment to thank a couple of people who have been part of my office this session and who will be moving on shortly. First I want to recognize Oliver Batchilder, who has been with my office as an intern through the parliamentary internship program.”
“Bill C-268 asks two fairly reasonable things: that mobile coverage data actually be verified for accuracy, and that this framework be reviewed on a regular schedule rather than being left to gather dust for another 20 years.”
“Brenda actually lived in Ottawa for a number of years, but she likes to joke that she had to move back home to find a job in politics. Since then, she has been the friendly face and the steady hand for so many people back home in my constituency who needed help to navigate the federal government.”
The complete record
Every one of 306 lines we hold for Dan Mazier, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 2 of 7.
“Mr. Speaker, it is always an honour to present a petition on behalf of constituents. I rise for the 12th time on behalf of the people of Dauphin, Manitoba, to present a petition on the rising rate of crime. Residents of Dauphin and the Parkland region are demanding that the Liberal government repeal its soft-on-crime policies that have fuelled a surge in crime throughout their communities. Since 2015, there has been a 54% increase in violent crime and a 75% increase in sexual assaults across Canada. Petitioners are deeply concerned by what they read in the local papers, including a November report that the Dauphin RCMP is searching for a wanted man with three separate arrest warrants.”
“Mr. Chair, the minister claims that the interim federal health program is temporary, but the Parliamentary Budget Officer says that the average program coverage for asylum claimants is now four years under her watch. Is four years temporary?”
“Mr. Chair, William Imona-Russel was a rejected asylum claimant who raped two women and murdered a 20-year-old girl while still in Canada. This rapist would qualify for luxury health benefits like speech therapy under the Liberal government. Does the minister think that is okay?”
“Mr. Chair, the immigration minister stated on the record that luxury health benefits like physiotherapy, home care and counselling are “essential services” for rejected asylum claimants. How are these essential benefits if Canadian taxpayers do not receive them?”
“Mr. Speaker, maybe the Liberals need a taxpayer-funded counselling session to understand why Canadians are furious. After leaving Afghanistan, Fawad Ahmad went to the United States where he choked his wife and threatened to choke her again. He later entered Canada and claimed asylum, but was rejected. Yet the Liberals kept him eligible for taxpayer-funded luxury health benefits like physiotherapy and counselling. Will the health minister finally admit this is wrong, or does she believe rejected asylum claimants deserve better health benefits than Canadians paying the bill?”
“Mr. Speaker, according to the Parliamentary Budget Officer, 74,000 rejected asylum claimants remain eligible for luxury health benefits like physiotherapy and counselling under the Liberals. One of those rejected asylum claimants was Fawad Ahmad. After leaving Afghanistan, he went to the United States, where he choked his wife and threatened to choke her again if she called the police. He then entered Canada and claimed asylum, but was rejected. Can the health minister explain why rejected asylum claimants who choke their wives get better health benefits than law-abiding Canadians?”
“Madam Speaker, the member did not answer my question. Canadians want to know why the Liberal parliamentary secretary for health turned off the cameras at the health committee during an emergency meeting on the $300-million PrescribeIT program failure. It is a very simple question. Why did she vote to turn off the committee cameras?”
“Madam Speaker, on April 28, the health committee held an emergency meeting on the Liberals' $300-million PrescribeIT program failure. During that meeting, the parliamentary secretary for health moved a motion to shut off the committee cameras. She never explained why. I will ask her directly. Why did she shut off the cameras?”
“Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Liberal House leader defended luxury health benefits for asylum claimants whom his own government rejected, stating they are “the most vulnerable people on...earth”. Really? How about William Imona-Russel, the rejected asylum claimant who raped two women and murdered a 20-year-old girl while still in Canada? Under the Liberals, criminals like him remain eligible for luxury health benefits like physiotherapy and home care. Do the Liberals still believe these rejected asylum claimants deserve better health benefits than Canadians?”
“Mr. Speaker, I am really glad that the hon. member brought up the Parliamentary Budget Officer, because she just released a damning report revealing that nearly 74,000 rejected asylum claimants remain eligible for luxury health care benefits under the Liberals' interim federal health program. This includes rejected asylum claimants who are listed as wanted for failing to show up at their removal proceedings, yet under the Liberals, all of these claimants still qualify for luxury health benefits like physiotherapy, counselling and home care. Why are the Liberals providing better health care to rejected asylum claimants than to hard-working Canadians?”
“Mr. Speaker, the Liberal member asked a question around groceries and why we do not support, basically, subsidies for Canadians. The Liberal government is already taking the money away from them. I wonder if the hon. member could explain the whole value chain and how much the clean fuel standard costs our entire supply chain when it comes to food.”
“To the health care workers and first responders listening today, I want to say we see what they are facing, we hear what they are telling us and we are not going to pretend that violence is normal. They should not have to choose between caring for Canadians and protecting themselves. Health care workers have cared for us, and now it is time for us in Parliament to show that we are willing to protect them. Let us pass Bill S-233 , let us take action to address violence against health care workers and let us do it without any more delay.”
“Workers are tired of being resilient in the face of violence that should have been prevented and punished. They are tired of politicians calling them essential while treating their safety as optional. There is nothing compassionate about tolerating violence against health care workers and there is nothing responsible about allowing the justice system to send the message that these assaults are just part of the job description. The Conservatives believe in consequences and protecting the people who protect us, whether they be nurses, paramedics, personal support workers or every first responder serving our communities. We believe that if someone attacks them, the law should reflect the seriousness of that offence. That is what Bill S-233 would do.”
“Let us think about that. Health care professionals are holding vigils and gathering in public squares to mourn and demand that politicians act because violence has become so common. That alone should motivate this House to pass Bill S-233 without delay. I believe society reveals its values through what it is willing to protect. If we say we value health care, then we must value the people who deliver it. If we say we respect first responders, then our laws must reflect that respect. If we say nurses are the backbone of the health care system, then we cannot leave them to face violence as part of the job. For years, frontline workers have been praised in speeches and press conferences, but words are not consequences for an assault or a threat. These workers are not asking Parliament for more applause. They are asking us to act.”
“We called on Parliament to fast-track Bill S-233 so that it could become law last Christmas. My Conservative colleague from Cariboo—Prince George , who introduced the original bill, stood with me and called on Parliament to pass Bill S-233 at all stages with unanimous consent. We were joined in that call by the Canadian Nurses Association and representatives from Canada's paramedic community. In other words, the people who actually represent the workers being assaulted on the job were asking Parliament to act. What happened when the Conservatives moved the unanimous consent motion to fast-track the legislation? The Liberal Party said no. What a missed opportunity. Less than a year ago, the Ontario Nurses’ Association held a vigil at Nathan Phillips Square in Toronto to honour those impacted by violence and to demand safer workplaces.”
“It was studied and agreed to, and it was ready to become law. The only reason it is in not law today is that Justin Trudeau prorogued Parliament and the current Prime Minister called an early election. Let me remind Parliament and our Liberal colleagues across the way of where we are today. The bill has already been debated and studied, and it has received unanimous support. The workers affected by violence do not need another awareness week, a photo op or more talking points from the Liberal government. They need Parliament to pass this bill. I will be honest. I am quite frustrated to hear other politicians speak about how good and important this legislation is, because in December, the Conservatives gave this House a chance to do the right thing. I might ask the Liberals to listen to this a little more closely.”
“This bill is about telling every health care worker and first responder in this country that Parliament understands the seriousness of what they face. This bill does not solve every safety problem in health care. Provinces and employers still have responsibilities and work to do, but the federal government has a responsibility for the Criminal Code, and that is why this bill makes a difference. Bill S-233 would ensure that if someone assaults the people who are providing care, they will face consequences. (1105) The most frustrating part of this debate is that Parliament has already had a chance to act. In the last Parliament, my Conservative colleague from Cariboo—Prince George introduced an identical bill in Bill C-321 . That bill was supported unanimously in both the House and the Senate.”
“It would amend the Criminal Code so that when a court is sentencing someone for certain assault offences, the court must consider it an aggravating circumstance if the victim is a person providing health care services, including personal care services, or a first responder engaged in the performance of their duty. In other words, if someone attacks a nurse while they are caring for a patient, there are more consequences. If someone threatens a paramedic while they are trying to save their life, there are more consequences. If someone assaults a personal support worker while they are caring for someone vulnerable, there are more consequences. That is basic justice. An assault on a health care worker or a first responder is not just an assault on one person. It is an attack on the people our communities depend on in moments of crisis.”
“The results of allowing the system to tolerate these assaults show up when nurses stop picking up overtime shifts or when workers leave unsafe units. It also discourages future generations from entering the health care profession altogether. Canada is already experiencing a shortage of health care workers. We are facing closed emergency rooms, cancelled surgeries, delayed home care, overcrowded hospitals and families waiting months to get care, so when violence drives even one more health care worker out of the profession, it becomes a patient care issue too. It means longer wait times and more pressure on the workers who remain in an already burdened system. A country that cannot protect its health care workers will not be able to protect the future viability of its health care system. That is why Bill S-233 matters.”
“In my home province of Manitoba, there were 812 workers' compensation claims accepted in 2024 for nurses who were victims of assault and violent acts. In 2015, that number was 298. That is an increase of nearly 200%. At Winnipeg's Grace Hospital, after health care workers were threatened and assaulted, the president of the Manitoba Nurses Union said staff felt like it was “business as usual, carry on.” There should be nothing usual about health care workers being assaulted. It is not acceptable for health care workers to report an assault and be left with the feeling that the system expects them to take it and keep on going. Why do we tolerate it in health care? The cost of tolerating these assaults is not limited to an individual. It creates a ripple effect throughout our entire health care system.”
“Violence is not part of the job description of a nurse, a personal support worker, a paramedic or any first responder who runs toward danger while everyone else is running away from it. The Canadian Federation of Nurses Unions surveyed thousands of nurses across the country, and six in 10 reported that they had experienced job-related violence or abuse in just the previous year. Of the nurses who experienced violence or abuse, 82% reported verbal abuse. Nearly half reported physical violence, and almost one in five reported sexual abuse. These are not just statistics. These are mental and physical burdens that follow health care workers home at the end of their shift. They change how people work and how they feel. For far too many frontline workers, they change whether they stay in the profession at all.”
“Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support Bill S-233 , which is a bill that should not be controversial. It should not be controversial to say that people who care for us deserve to be protected. It should not be controversial to say that a nurse should not be punched, bitten, spat on, sexually assaulted or threatened while doing their job. It should not be controversial to say that when someone assaults a health care worker or a first responder on duty, the justice system should treat that assault seriously. However, we have reached that point in Canada when health care workers are being told, directly or indirectly, that violence is just part of the job. That is wrong.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am sort of confused, because yesterday at the health committee, the board chair of Health Infoway actually said that the program was a success, yet the Liberal government has been shutting it down. However, it still managed to spend $300 million and was still sending fax messages after 10 years. I will go back to my original question: Why did the parliamentary secretary for health vote to turn off the cameras at the health committee while we were investigating the $300 million spent on PrescribeIT? Why did she turn off the cameras?”
“Mr. Speaker, it is always an honour to be at the late show to follow up on some questions that need to be answered. Last week, Conservatives called an emergency meeting of the health committee to investigate the $300 million the Liberals wasted on PrescribeIT. When we moved a motion to call on the Auditor General to investigate the program, the Liberal parliamentary secretary for health moved a motion to turn off the committee cameras. My question is simple: Why did the Liberals turn off the cameras?”
“However, after spending $300 million with nothing to show for it, the Liberals quietly shut down the program and hoped that Canadians would never notice. The CEO of Canada Health Infoway, who refused to disclose his own salary at the health committee, was earning nearly $900,000 a year while this was happening. This was for a non-profit organization. He was fired last month, after the Conservatives launched an investigation. This is what Liberal spending looks like. It is a black hole with no accountability.”
“Mr. Speaker, the bill is about how much money the Liberals have actually wasted here. The PrescribeIT program is a blinding example, and it is absolutely a waste of $300 million. Canada Health Infoway is a so-called non-profit organization funded by the federal Minister of Health. For nearly a decade, the Liberals poured money into a program called “PrescribeIT”. They promised PrescribeIT would eliminate fax machines for prescription drugs, but as a result, it was a $300-million failure. There was $300 million spent, and fewer than 5% of prescriptions ever made were on the platform. In my province of Manitoba, a province of over one million people, the program collected just over $1,200 in fee revenue over 15 months. The Liberals promised that it would be financially self-sustainable. What a joke.”
“Mr. Speaker, the Liberals gave Canada Health Infoway $300 million for PrescribeIT, a program that they promised would replace fax machines for prescription drugs. Instead, less than 5% of the prescriptions went through the program, and PrescribeIT is now being quietly shut down with no results. Canadians still do not know where their money went. Yesterday at the health committee, the chair of Canada Health Infoway revealed that the health minister never once raised concerns about PrescribeIT. Why did the Liberal minister allow $300 million to be burned, without saying a word?”
“Mr. Speaker, the Liberal member did not answer my question, so I will ask it again. Does the parliamentary secretary for health believe it is fair that rejected asylum claimants receive better taxpayer-funded health benefits than those Canadians who are paying for them, yes or no?”
“According to the Liberal government, rejected asylum claimants remain eligible for deluxe health benefits like physiotherapy, home care and speech therapy. As such, my question is simple. Does the Liberal member believe it is fair that a rejected asylum claimant receives better taxpayer-funded health benefits than the Canadians who are paying for them?”
“The health minister had every tool to audit and evaluate Infoway, but instead she let the CEO of a failing program pocket millions in taxpayer-funded compensation, including maximum performance bonuses. Conservatives will not stop investigating PrescribeIT until we find out where every dollar went and who else got rich. We are not here to discuss the $300-million PrescribeIT scandal, though. We are here to discuss the $1.5-billion interim federal health program scandal. Thanks to my colleague from Red Deer , Conservatives have uncovered that the Liberals have spent more than $275 million on health benefits for asylum seekers whose claims were rejected by the government's own Immigration and Refugee Board.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is always an honour to do the late show. I want to begin with a brief comment, given that we are discussing the work of the health committee. We just received word that the CEO and president of Canada Health Infoway, Michael Green, has been fired by the Infoway board. As Canadians are finding out, Canada Health Infoway is a taxpayer-funded organization the Liberals funnelled $300 million through to run the failed PrescribeIT program. This news comes just hours after Conservatives uncovered that Mr. Green pocketed over $830,000 in taxpayer-funded compensation last year, which included a maximum performance bonus of over $215,000. The only reason Michael Green was fired from Canada Health Infoway is that Conservatives exposed the Liberals' $300-million PrescribeIT failure.”
“Mr. Speaker, the Liberals gave $300 million to Canada Health Infoway for PrescribeIT. The taxpayer-funded CEO, Michael Green, testified at committee that the Canada Health Infoway board terminated PrescribeIT, yet the health minister claimed it was the Liberals. Officials also revealed that the Liberals kept shovelling millions into PrescribeIT even after they knew it was failing. This $300-million scandal is not adding up. If the Liberals have nothing to hide, will they support our motion to call the Auditor General in to investigate PrescribeIT?”
“Mr. Speaker, the health minister's officials revealed that the Liberals spent $300 million on the PrescribeIT program with nothing to show for it. The Liberals promised that PrescribeIT would replace fax machines for prescription drugs, but now PrescribeIT is being quietly shut down after fewer than 5% of all prescriptions went through the program. No one can tell Canadians where the money went. Conservatives are calling on the Auditor General to investigate PrescribeIT. Will the Liberals support an investigation or will they continue their $300-million cover-up?”
“Mr. Speaker, $300 million spent on PrescribeIT is making ArriveCAN look like pocket change. The Liberals paid Canada Health Infoway to design the program, which then paid Telus Health to develop the program, which then may have outsourced the work offshore. The CEO of Canada Health Infoway could not even tell the health committee how much the government paid him for this failure, claiming he did not know his own salary. Canadians got nothing from PrescribeIT. The $300-million question is, who got rich?”
“Mr Speaker, Canadians are learning that the Liberals spent $300 million on a software program called PrescribeIT. The Liberals promised PrescribeIT would replace fax machines for prescription drugs, but instead, less than 5% of prescriptions went through the program. Now the Liberals are quietly shutting down PrescribeIT, hoping Canadians won't notice that their money is gone. Given that taxpayers funded a program that they do not own for a service that never worked, my question is simple: Where did the $300 million go?”
“Mr. Speaker, I presented the health minister with peer-reviewed evidence that showed drug consumption sites do nothing to fix the addictions crisis. In fact, ditching them leads to better outcomes for those suffering from addictions, yet the minister is doubling down on a policy that is not delivering results. Will the minister admit that this approach is failing and commit today to a clear plan, with timelines, that prioritizes treatment and recovery over maintaining the status quo?”
“Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for introducing this bill. I had the pleasure of speaking to the bill through its stages and supporting it. I looked forward to seeing it come through the committee stage. What really took me aback during this whole process was how many people reached out to me to say that this was so long overdue. I really do want to thank the member for introducing this bill, for sticking with it and carrying this through. It is encouraging to hear that, from across the aisle, there is overall support in the House. It is kind of a good day in this Parliament.”
“Our once safe communities have now turned into places where people fear for their life because the government's catch-and-release policies have allowed violent repeat offenders to be out on bail instead of in jail. The people of Dauphin and the Parkland region demand that the Liberal government repeal its soft-on-crime policies, which directly threaten their livelihoods and their community. I fully support the good people of Dauphin.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to present a petition on behalf of constituents. I rise for the 12th time on behalf of the people of Dauphin, Manitoba, to present a petition on the rising rate of crime. Residents of Dauphin and the Parkland region are demanding that the Liberal government repeal its soft-on crime policies that have fuelled a surge in crime throughout their communities. Since 2015, there has been a 54% increase in violent crime and a 75% increase in sexual assaults across Canada. Petitioners are deeply concerned by what they read in the local newspapers, including a November report that the Dauphin RCMP is searching for a wanted man with three separate arrest warrants.”
“Mr. Speaker, that was another great comment and question from the member from the Bloc. Again, this goes back to money. The Liberals, we know, cannot manage money to save their lives. It seems like instead of trying to support the security community and make sure this program actually works and the bill can work, the Liberals are more interested in protecting slush funds. Tomorrow, at the health committee, we are going to be investigating why 250 million taxpayer dollars was spent on PrescribeIT, rather than going to help security forces and strengthen this bill. Meanwhile, it was put into a Liberal slush fund.”
“Mr. Speaker, I guess I do have a question of the government. The member talked about law enforcement and helping out law enforcement. It is quite puzzling when we start talking about how we support law enforcement. By all means, I still cannot understand why the Liberal government is moving forward with the confiscation program for firearms. It is spending billions of dollars on that. Those dollars could actually be going towards helping out bills like this and actually protecting Canadians instead of looking at penalizing firearms owners.”
“Mr. Speaker, the truth of the matter is that we really do not know. That is why it so important to get this bill to committee. If we rely on the Liberals' track record and the history of this bill, they obviously must be nervous about what else is going to be wrong with it. Everybody is really suspicious. That is why I do think it is really important that we get this bill to committee and really suss out those potential problems.”
“Conservatives will not let that happen again. We will make sure this legislation serves both justice and freedom, because Canadians deserve nothing less.”
“Conservatives support giving law enforcement agencies the tools they need within a framework that respects the rights of Canadians. Sending it to committee would allow Parliament to fix legislation before it becomes law. I represent a rural region in western Manitoba. My constituents care deeply about safety and their freedom. They want law enforcement officers to have the tools to protect their communities. They also expect their government to protect their rights. Those two things are not in conflict. Effective law enforcement and strong safeguards for Canadians can and must go together. The R. v. Bykovets case reminds us that shortcuts in procedure can undermine even the strongest investigation. The history of the Liberal legislation in Bill C-2 reminds us what happens when government reaches too far.”
“This bill needs that scrutiny. It does not clearly define who must keep the retained data, where it would be stored, how long it would be kept or how it would be protected. Those gaps would leave the system exposed to misuse. The definition of electronic service provider is broad. It can extend well beyond telecommunications to messaging platforms and cloud services. The bill would set limits on excluding content, browsing history and social media activity from retention, but it is not clear those distinctions would hold. At committee, we will hear from law enforcement officers who can speak to what they need on the ground. It is where privacy experts can explain how these measures would affect Canadians. That is where the work of Parliament is supposed to occur.”
“If limits are not clearly defined, the risk of improper use would increase. Data retention creates a standing pool of information that can be accessed later. Without clear rules on storage, duration and security, that data would become vulnerable. Ministerial orders would impose requirements on private systems without public visibility. As I commented before, that is probably one of the more concerning ones. We need public visibility with this bill. It is not clear that the oversight by the intelligence commissioner alone would be sufficient. These are not hypothetical concerns, but the same concerns that forced major changes in Bill C-2 ; they exist in Bill C-22 . Conservatives want this bill to go to committee. Second reading is about the principle of the bill. Committee is about whether the bill is properly drafted and actually works.”
“Part 1 would lower the threshold for accessing subscriber information. It would allow investigators to move from an IP address to an identifiable person more quickly and without a warrant. (1640) Part 2 would require electronic service providers to retain data, including IP addresses and location information, so it is available for future access. The bill would also also give ministers the power to impose technical requirements on service providers through confidential orders. I think that is the most important part. I personally think that is probably one of the bigger sticking points. Those orders would be reviewed by the intelligence commissioner. Each of those three things raises serious questions. Subscriber information can reveal identity and patterns of activity.”
“That is exactly why Parliament must examine this bill with care. Let us be honest about the government's record on crime. For 10 years, the Liberals let crime get out of control. Violent crime is up, auto theft is up, and bail has become a revolving door. Canadians are less safe today than they were when the Liberals took office. What has been the Liberals' response? Absolutely nothing. Canadians will not be fooled. They have watched the government talk tough on crime while criminals walk free on bail the same day they are arrested. They have watched the government lecture Canadians about safety while gutting the tools that keep them safe. Now the same government wants Parliament to trust it with expanded access to the personal data of Canadians. What would Bill C-22 actually do?”
“It proposed a sweeping expansion of government surveillance that alarmed many Canadians, including many of my constituents. It would have given the government access to personal data across a broad range of service providers with little jurisdictional oversight. It included broad ministerial powers with almost no independent accountability. It applied obligations far beyond the communications sector. Conservatives pushed back. We forced the Liberals to remove provisions that would have allowed access to postal mail without a warrant. We forced them to remove provisions that would have enabled broad demands for personal data without defined legal thresholds. After all of that, they came back with Bill C-22 . When a government has to rewrite its own legislation twice because it went too far, it raises many concerns.”
“Investigators can only move forward when that data can be tied to a real person. Because the IP address was accessed without a warrant, the evidence was thrown out. That is the reality of what Parliament is dealing with today. In a digital investigation, it is not enough to find the evidence. The law must allow law enforcement to get it in the right way. If that step is mishandled, the case can fall apart, and justice may not be served. That is why Parliament must get this legislation right. Before I say more about Bill C-22 , we need to look at how the legislation came to be here today, because this is not the first time the Liberal government has tried to expand access to the personal information of Canadians. Last fall, the Liberals introduced Bill C-2 .”