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 3 of 7.
“We support giving law enforcement the modern tools it needs to do its job, but we also understand something else: The government does not get a free pass from scrutiny when it comes to the personal information of Canadians. Let me tell members about a case that shows exactly what Parliament is dealing with here. In the Supreme Court case of R. v. Bykovets, police were investigating online fraud by a fraudster who was using stolen credit card information to purchase gift cards online. Investigators traced the activity back to an IP address and obtained subscriber information, and charges followed. However, the case was decided not by what evidence was found but by how that evidence was obtained. That information could reveal personal details about a person's online activity.”
“Mr. Speaker, Conservatives believe in law and order, real law and order, not the kind the Liberals talk about at election time and forget about the moment the votes are counted. Real law and order means keeping Canadians safe and making sure the justice system actually works. Today we are talking about Bill C-22 , a bill that deals with how law enforcement investigates crime in the digital world. Crime has changed. The drug dealer who once operated on a street corner now operates through encrypted apps. The fraudster who once passed bad cheques now steals credit cards online. The predator who once lurked in a park now targets children on the Internet. If Parliament does not give law enforcement the tools to follow crime in a digital world, criminals will keep winning. Conservatives understand that.”
“Our once safe communities have now turned into places where people fear for their lives 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 communities. I fully support the good people of Dauphin.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is always an honour to rise and present a petition on behalf of my constituents. I rise for the 11th 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. The petitioners are deeply concerned by what they read in the local papers, including a November report that the Dauphin RCMP are searching for a wanted man with three separate arrest warrants.”
“The people of Dauphin and the Parkland region demand that the Liberal government repeal its soft-on-crime policies that directly threaten their livelihoods and their communities. I fully support the good people of Dauphin.”
“Mr. Speaker, I rise for the 10th 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 are searching for a wanted man with three separate arrest warrants. Our once-safe communities have now turned into places where people fear for their lives because the government's catch-and-release policies have allowed violent repeat offenders to be out on bail instead of in jail.”
“Children are walking past clouds of fentanyl smoke on their way to school and day cares are shutting down because children are no longer safe at these sites. A decade of drug enablement policies has failed Canadians suffering with addiction and the communities surrounding these sites. Canadians understand that supervised consumption sites are magnets for drugs and disorder, two things that have no place next to children. New peer-reviewed evidence now confirms that closing these sites actually leads more users toward life-saving addiction treatment, which is another reason to take action. As a father and a grandfather, I hope all members will quickly pass this bill to protect children. (Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)”
“Bill C-272. Introduction and first reading moved for leave to introduce C-272, An Act to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (supervised drug consumption sites) . He said: Mr. Speaker, today, I am introducing legislation to ban supervised drug consumption sites next to children. Fentanyl, meth, crack cocaine and heroin are the drugs being smoked, injected and snorted both inside and outside of supervised consumption sites across Canada. Every supervised drug consumption site operates only because the federal Minister of Health approves it through an exemption under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. She has the power to act, but chooses not to. Because of that failure, used needles and crack pipes are being found on playgrounds.”
“Mr. Speaker, one thing I can never get over is that the Liberals, in the last two questions, took an opportunity, instead of talking about what Canada is going to offer and do for Canadians, attempted a gotcha moment and heckled us. Unfortunately, we are talking about a trade agreement that is going to enhance Canadians. I asked the member for Winnipeg North this morning if there is anything in this agreement for Canadians, and he answered no. Can the member reply to that?”
“Mr. Speaker, it was a great speech, even though I had to listen to the translation for half of it. I was surprised that the washing of the carcasses is still an issue in our trade agreement. I remember that before I was a parliamentarian here in 2019, that was a hot topic and basically a non-tariff barrier, so I am quite fascinated as to why it has not been resolved yet. I do not know what the Liberal government was doing all these years about trying to get that fixed. Also, with respect to pensioners, I am surprised. We are talking about a trade agreement, but meanwhile we are asking the British government to increase taxes on people so they can pay pensioners over here more money. Is there an identical ask from the British government of our Canadian government in this trade agreement?”
“Madam Speaker, my colleague has brought up a lot of good points about trade, but I am wondering whether, in the trade agreements, there is any commitment to get our own house in order as a nation. The member referred to the plant in Neepawa. The biggest limiting factor for that plant is the requirement to have veterinarians and to maintain the Canadian national standard. We can make all the promises in the world, travel all over the world and say what we have for sale, but if we cannot get our own house in order, there are big problems. The Canadian agriculture industry has hit these roadblocks several times in the past, putting in question how much of a reliable supplier we are. In this agreement, is there any commitment to analyze our own Canadian system to help veterinarians and to get our own production systems in line?”
“Mr. Speaker, I rise for the ninth 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 the Liberal government repeal its soft-on-crime policies, which 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. Our once-safe communities have turned into places where people fear for their lives 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 communities.”
“Our once-safe communities have now turned into places where people fear for their lives 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 communities. I fully support the good people of Dauphin.”
“Mr. Speaker, I rise for the eighth time on behalf of the people of Dauphin, Manitoba, to present a petition on the rising rate of crime. The 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 their local newspapers, including a November report that Dauphin RCMP members are searching for a wanted man with three separate arrest warrants.”
“Mr. Speaker, this is the first study in Canada to use individual-level, linkable health data. That means, for the first time, we can see exactly what happened to the people who have used these sites. Every drug consumption site in Canada operates under an exemption granted by the federal health minister. If the research now says that closing a drug consumption site leads to more people getting life-saving treatment and no increase in deaths, why on earth is the minister still approving them?”
“Mr. Speaker, a peer-reviewed study published yesterday in a world-leading scientific journal found that closing a supervised drug consumption site led to no increase in deaths and no increase in emergency room visits. In fact, after the drug site closed, users were more likely to access life-saving addiction treatment. Every single drug consumption site in Canada exists only because the health minister approved it under federal law. The minister claims to follow science, so does she accept the science that proves consumption sites are not the solution to addiction?”
“That is good for patients, taxpayers and Canada. To the millions of Canadians who use natural health products, who take a supplement every morning, who read the label and simply choose to invest in their own health, I say that we see them, we hear them and we are fighting for them. The government declared a war on their vitamins, but Conservatives are fighting back to save their supplements and protect natural health products.”
“It would ensure that Canadians could continue to access the protein powders, vitamins, probiotics and supplements they rely on every single day while protecting the competitive Canadian businesses that make them. I believe Canada should regulate a vitamin like a vitamin, not like a prescription drug. Conservatives believe Canadians deserve access to natural health products. We believe in personal responsibility and in a government that respects the decisions Canadians make about their health. If we are serious about the long-term sustainability of Canadian health care, we must treat natural health care products as part of the solution, not as a threat to be regulated out of existence. Every Canadian who stays healthier longer through prevention is a Canadian who places less demand on an already overburdened health care system.”
“When the Liberals quietly reclassified the natural health products that millions of Canadians use every single day, that trust eroded again. We should remind ourselves that Canadians are capable of making informed and responsible decisions about their well-being. That brings me to the most important point of all, which is who is actually standing up to fix this. The Conservatives are. My colleague the member for Ponoka—Didsbury has once again stepped up on behalf of millions of Canadians. He has introduced Bill C-224 , an act that would amend the Food and Drugs Act. As the Conservative shadow minister for health, I fully support it. Bill C-224 would remove natural health products from the same regulatory category as pharmaceuticals and restore the made-in-Canada framework that protects both consumer safety and Canadian industry.”
“On the other hand, natural health products work differently. One cannot patent a natural vitamin. One cannot own vitamin D, for example. These are naturally occurring substances available to any company in an open market. This model drives down prices for consumers and creates a very competitive market. My point is that these are not just different products. They are fundamentally different business models, and they were never designed to operate under the same rules. Underneath this fight over natural health products, there is something more fundamental at stake, and that is trust. Canadians came out of the pandemic with increased skepticism toward institutions and health care. They watched governments make decisions that affected them deeply, often without explanation, and sometimes without accountability.”
“The products developed over the last century have extended and saved countless lives. When Canadians are sick, they need those products, and I am grateful that they exist, but the pharmaceutical model is fundamentally a reactive one. It is primarily designed to treat illness. That is not a criticism; it is simply what it does. (1835) On the other hand, the natural health product model is fundamentally a preventative one. Vitamins and supplements are products Canadians use to stay healthy and prevent illness. That difference in purpose reflects a difference in how these industries operate. The pharmaceutical industry invests billions in drug development because it protects the patent. It recoups its investment over the life of that patent, and that model funds research and trials and ultimately the treatments Canadians need.”
“Canadians are making decisions about their health in the waiting room of a walk-in clinic because that is the only option available to them. That is the reality. Because of that reality, natural health products are the lifeline for many Canadians. This matters because a system already at the breaking point cannot afford to lose something helping to keep people out of the system. When Canadians stay healthier through prevention, they are not just helping themselves. They are helping the health care system that desperately needs relief. If the government were serious about improving the health of Canadians, it would focus on the national tragedy unfolding on our streets and in our hospitals. The pharmaceutical industry has done incredible things for humanity.”
“In fact, it drives them online to American companies that are not subject to Health Canada's regime at all. Many of the natural health products being sold directly to consumers in Canada do not even have an NPN, which is the natural product number required for Canadian standards. The government's crackdown on Canadian businesses does not make Canadians safer. It actually makes them less safe, while gutting Canadian jobs in the process. This policy is clearly regulatory overreach that serves no one but the bureaucrats at Health Canada who designed it to protect their own jobs. Let us be honest about what the Canadian health care system looks like right now. Six million Canadians do not have a family doctor. The average wait time to see a specialist is around 30 weeks.”
“They said, “Hey, we want to regulate vitamins like pharmaceuticals.” In a stand-alone bill, it never would have survived public scrutiny, so they hid it in a budget bill and hoped Canadians would not read the fine print, but they did, and now the consequences are unfolding in Canada. People at one in five companies within the industry say regulations are forcing them to consider shutting down. At three out of four companies, they say there is a high chance they will have to pull products from shelves. At 83% of companies, nearly the entire sector, they say they have little to no capacity to absorb the cost. The irony of the decision is that, when the government over-regulates Canadian businesses out of existence, it does not stop Canadians from buying supplements.”
“The government is not going after the pharmaceutical companies that got Canadians hooked on opioids or the fentanyl traffickers who are killing Canadians. The government is going after the Canadians who are standing in the aisles of a grocery store, reading a label and making an informed decision about their health. In 2023, very deep inside Bill C-47 , an omnibus budget bill, the Liberals quietly reclassified natural health products as therapeutic products under the Food and Drugs Act. This is the same legal category as prescription drugs. Should a scoop of protein powder fall under the same regulations as insulin? Should a multivitamin be placed in the same category as Tylenol? I certainly do not think so, and neither do Canadians, so why did the Liberals bury this policy in a budget bill?”
“Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government declared a war on natural health products, not on opioids, fentanyl or drugs. No, it declared a war on vitamins and herbal medicines. The Liberals are targeting the mother who takes a supplement for her joints because she is waiting eight months to see a specialist. They are targeting the father who takes fish oil every morning because his doctor told him to watch his heart. They are targeting the child who takes Flintstones Vitamins at breakfast to strengthen their bones. Let us be clear about who uses natural health products in this country. These are not fringe Canadians. These are millions of ordinary people who are doing exactly what we should want them to do, taking responsibility for their own health and wellness on their own terms, but they are precisely whom this government chose to go after.”
“Our once safe communities have now turned into places where people fear for their lives 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 an honour to present a petition on behalf of constituents. I rise for the seventh 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, which 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 have read in local papers, including a November report that the Dauphin RCMP is searching for a wanted man with three separate arrest warrants.”
“Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize an outstanding individual from the community of Ste. Rose, Manitoba. Dr. David O'Hagan has dedicated 40 remarkable years to serving the people of Ste. Rose and the surrounding area as a physician. Originally from South Africa, Dr. O'Hagan chose rural Manitoba as his home, and he has never looked back. It is no secret that finding a doctor willing to plant roots in rural Canada is tough. Too many small towns watch their physicians come and go. Dr. O'Hagan did not just stay but fell in love with his community, raised his family there and made Ste. Rose his life's work. In rural Canada, a physician who stays is not just a doctor. They become a pillar to the entire community. Dr. O'Hagan and his wife, Bonnie, became that pillar, caring for generations of families with dedication and compassion.”
“Needless to say, Mr. Speaker, the member did not answer my question. I guess he was unprepared for the question on crack pipes, on which we have a conflict of opinion. However, he did bring up another important issue. Why are the Liberals allowing minors to approach and use drugs at consumption sites?”
“Mr. Speaker, on October 2, the health minister 's senior official told the health committee that no federal funds were used to buy crack pipes. On December 9, the same official corrected her testimony and revealed that federal funding can in fact be used to buy crack pipes. Then, on December 11, the health minister herself stated in the House that the government does not fund the purchase of crack pipes. Both statements cannot be true, so can Health Canada funding be used to purchase crack pipes? I ask for a simple yes or no.”
“Mr. Speaker, the Liberal immigration minister falsely told the health committee that rejected asylum claimants lose the premium health benefits her government provides, but she was wrong. In fact, her own department had to correct her. Rejected claimants remain fully eligible for premium health benefits like physiotherapy and home care under the interim federal health program. A minister who does not know her own program has no business running it. Will the Prime Minister take accountability and fire his immigration minister ?”
“Mr. Speaker, I asked the immigration minister at health committee how many more patients our health care system could handle. She laughed and then said it was not a fair question for immigration. She said it was not a fair question, but six million Canadians do not have a doctor. People are dying waiting for care. Our system is at capacity, and she does not even know it. If the minister setting immigration levels does not think health care capacity is her business, then she has no business being minister. Will the Prime Minister fire her today?”
“Mr. Speaker, if the Liberals actually cared about genuine refugees, they would not force them to wait in the same health care lines as fake asylum claimants, and they would not force them to wait in the same backlog as claimants whom the government rejected, but they do, and they refuse to fix it. Will the health minister explain to those genuine refugees why rejected claimants are ahead of them on health care wait-lists?”
“Mr. Speaker, six million Canadians do not have a family doctor, and the average wait time to see a specialist is around 30 weeks, yet the Liberals keep rejected asylum claimants, people their own refugee board has rejected, fully enrolled in a program with premium health benefits, on the same wait-list as those Canadians. Does the health minister believe that the asylum claimants her own government rejected should be in the same lines as Canadians and genuine refugees, yes or no?”
“Madam Speaker, that is an excellent question my colleague just asked, and I think that is the crux of the problem with the program. It is not fair to any one of us. It is not fair to the Canadians who pay into the system, and it is not fair to the refugees whom we are actually trying to service. That is what everybody is missing on this, especially on the Liberal side. I cannot for the life of me understand why the Liberals are not doing something about this, especially when we have now pointed it out. The program has grown by more than 1,000%. I know they are not very good with numbers, but surely that should stand out in anyone's budget on the other side.”
“Madam Speaker, I am the shadow minister for health, so that is what I have been focusing on. The interim federal health program and the bogus claimants have had a devastating impact on our access to health care in Canada. As far as the technicalities of the question that the member asked go, I would refer that response to my colleague from Calgary who is the shadow minister for that department.”
“Madam Speaker, again, I cannot believe what the member is asking of me. In the health committee right now, we have been analyzing this. The PBO came out with a report that found that the cost was going to be $150 billion a year. Then the Liberals started saying, “But we found a solution to this. Look at what we've done. We're going to fix this problem. We're going to fix these bogus claims. We're going to fix the cost of the program, but we need more reports and more study.” We then proposed an actual motion to do that, to give the Parliamentary Budget Officer the leeway and the time to actually go ahead and study it more. What did the Liberals do? They are filibustering this. They are stopping us at committee from actually going forward with the motion and getting to the bottom of this.”
“It is called the interim federal health program. It is a program that bogus asylum claimants exploit at the expense of Canadians and genuine refugees. It is time to restore this program to support the people it was designed to serve.”
“Fair means that the mother trying to get her son the care he needs should not be on a wait-list behind the people whose legal right to be in this country has been denied. Fair means that when the Parliamentary Budget Officer reports that this program will cost Canadians over $1.5 billion a year with no accountability, the government has an obligation to act. Here is what the Conservatives are proposing: When the Immigration and Refugee Board rejects a claim, health coverage must be restricted to emergency and life-saving care only. The government should also review all the benefits provided by the program to restore fairness to the people who fund the health care system. The Liberals and left-wing politicians spent decades warning Canadians about a two-tiered health care system, but they have built a two-tiered system.”
“The health committee heard testimony from doctors that physicians are billing the interim federal health program up to five times the rate they charge for Canadian patients, with little oversight, if any. According to the program's fee guide, there are no maximum billing limits for many services under the program. Canada is a generous country. We always have been. We welcome people who are fleeing genuine persecution, and we should. Conservatives believe in immigration and health care systems that are compassionate and fair, but fair means something. Fair means that the nurse in Winnipeg should not have to pick up an extra shift to pay for her glasses, while the federal government hands that same benefit for free to someone who had their fraudulent claim rejected by the refugee board and has not left.”
“They are playing by the rules, but ahead of all those Canadians and genuine refugees on that wait-list are bogus asylum claimants, people whose claim the refugee board has already reviewed and rejected. Think about that. Six million Canadians do not have a family doctor right now. The average wait time to see a specialist is around 30 weeks, and over 100,000 Canadians have died since 2018 while waiting for care. When rejected fraudulent asylum claimants are on the wait list, they add to the backlog and reduce timely care for Canadians and genuine refugees. It is not only the bogus asylum claimants who are exploiting the program; reports suggest that the medical community may be exploiting it as well.”
“When it costs over $1.5 billion a year, is growing every single year and has no ceiling and no off-ramp, it is not interim anymore; it is a permanent, expanding entitlement that is being exploited by the people it was not designed to help. It costs $1.5 billion every year, there is a backlog stretching years, and Canadians are waiting behind all of it. Think about what this means for the Canadian family. Think about a mother in this country who has been waiting months to see a specialist. Her doctor referred her, but she is still waiting in a system that is already stretched beyond its limits. Genuine refugees are also on the wait-lists, seeking the care they deserve.”
“Because of the Conservative-led investigation at the health committee, the Parliamentary Budget Officer also revealed that the interim federal health program will cost Canadians over $1.5 billion by the year 2030. (1030) To put it in perspective, that is up from approximately $66 million from a decade ago. In under a decade, the program described as limited and temporary has grown by more than 1,000%. It is $1.5 billion every year for a program called interim. That is the word I keep returning to: “interim”, which means temporary. As I said earlier, the program was designed to be a bridge for genuine refugees who needed care but were not covered under the provincial insurance plans. When a program costs $80 million a year and serves a defined, time-limited purpose, it is reasonable to call it interim.”
“It does not restrict them to emergency care; it keeps them enrolled in a full program, including every supplemental benefit I have described, for as long as they remain in Canada. Vision care, physiotherapy, occupational therapy, home care and speech therapy are all fully covered for people who the refugee board has already said should not be here. Because the government has allowed a historic backlog to paralyze the immigration system, with claims taking years to process, the number of people in the program is staggering. The Parliamentary Budget Officer projects there will be over 680,000 people who are eligible beneficiaries by 2030.”
“A legal body made a legal determination, and the Liberal government's response to that rejection is to keep those individuals enrolled in the program with full benefits, including the deluxe supplemental health benefits that Canadians are not entitled to. How long does this continue? The government's own website answers that too. In its words, it says that coverage remains in place until “you leave Canada.” Why would anyone in that position choose to leave Canada? Let me be absolutely clear. Conservatives support providing emergency and life-saving care to anyone in this country, including someone whose claim has been rejected. That is a basic humanitarian principle, and we stand by it, but it is not what the program does for rejected claimants.”
“There is a group of people receiving these benefits that the government has tried to hide from Canadians. I am going to read from the government's own eligibility page for the interim federal health program. This is publicly available for anyone willing to look at it. Under the heading “Refugee claimants”, it states, in the government's words, that coverage is provided if “your claim for refugee protection has been rejected by the [Immigration and Refugee Board]”. It says “rejected”, not “pending” and not “under review”. The Immigration and Refugee Board, the very body the government created to make these determinations, reviewed a claim and said no.”
“However, Canadians also know what it does not cover; it does not cover premium benefits like vision care, physiotherapy, counselling, assistive devices, occupational therapy and home care. In 2016, the Liberals expanded the program to give supplemental health benefits to asylum seekers. According to the government, supplemental health benefits under the interim federal health program include vision care, counselling, assistive devices, home visits, nursing homes, transportation, physiotherapy, occupational therapy, speech therapy and interpretation services. Those are the government's words, not mine. These are not basic emergency services; they are deluxe health benefits that millions of Canadians pay for out of pocket or earn through their workplace. However, that is not the most troubling part of the program.”
“Madam Speaker, let us talk about a two-tiered health care system, not the fictional version that the Liberals and the NDP dust off every election to scare Canadians but a real one that actually exists. There is a two-tiered health care system in Canada today, but it is one that the left-wing politicians suddenly refuse to touch. This two-tiered system has a name; it is called the interim federal health program. This program was originally created to ensure that refugees fleeing genuine persecution had temporary health care while they transitioned into our provincial health care systems. Now it is being exploited by bogus asylum claimants. Most Canadians know what the public health care system covers: doctors, hospitals and medically necessary care. That is what the Canada Health Act guarantees, and that is what Canadians are proud of.”
“Our once safe communities have now turned into places where people fear for their lives 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.”