Dan Mazier · TranslatePolitics.ca

Private Members' Business

Spectrum Policy Framework for Canada Act

2026-06-17

“I'm using a tragedy from over a century ago to argue for more government regulation of radio spectrum today. I want companies that buy spectrum rights to be forced to deploy service faster in rural areas. I don't think spectrum auctions should raise money for the government if it means some Canadians get left behind on coverage.”

Official Hansard

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. Oliver is sharp, diligent and very hard-working. In fact, I have told him he works harder than most full-time paid staff I have known around this place. We are going to miss having him around, and Parliament is lucky to have young people such as Oliver coming through its doors, but I know he is going to do great things and his future is very bright. I also want to recognize Brenda Birch, my constituency assistant in Neepawa, who will be retiring in the coming weeks. 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. She has done that work with an incredible amount of care and patience, and I know how much constituents noticed and appreciated her work. On behalf of my constituents, I wish Brenda all the best in her retirement, and I thank her for her years of service. With that, let me turn to the legislation before us today. On the night of April 14, 1912, a wireless operator aboard the Titanic tapped out a distress call into the dark Atlantic. Some ships caught it. One that might have reached the Titanic in time did not, because nobody was at the radio and because airwaves in those days were more like the Wild West. At the time, wireless communication was still new. The rules were incomplete, and channels were crowded. More than 1,500 people lost their life that night, and the inquiry that followed revealed that wireless communication was a matter of life and death. That is why, in the years after the disaster, countries agreed that the airwaves needed to be better managed in the public interest. I start there purposely, because more than a century later, we are still arguing about the same basic resource. Today we call it “spectrum”, and the importance of it has, if anything, only grown. 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. We cannot see spectrum and cannot touch it, but it is behind almost everything we do. It is the call that connects, or does not. It is the alert that reaches our phone, the card reader at a small-town shop and the radio a volunteer firefighter uses on a gravel road. In the city, Canadians barely notice any of this, but in rural Canada, it is the line between being part of the country's economy and being shut out of it. Right now, rural Canada is too often on the losing end of that line. Let us look at a recent example. 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. Compare that 5% to the deployment requirement in a major city, where a provider has to reach 30% within five years and 70% over the long run. That information is public. It is outlined in ISED's own licensing decision, for anyone who wants to check it out. That means a telecom provider can buy up the rights to serve rural Canada, let that spectrum sit there doing nothing for years, and clear a bar that is low, and the government calls that a mission accomplished. That is not good enough. Rural Canadians know it is not, because they are the ones living in the dead zone. If the legislation makes it to committee, I strongly recommend that the committee review the large discrepancies between rural and urban tiers for spectrum deployment requirements. Long timelines for deployment of spectrum in rural areas result in the lack of priority given to deploying connectivity in rural regions. Telecommunications providers purchase this spectrum and slowly deploy it after they prioritize urban regions, where there is more revenue to be generated. I have often asked myself why the deployment requirements are not equal between rural and urban regions, if we really want to close the digital divide. 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. However, I will note that Telus, in recent government consultations, supported increased deployment requirements, so there is hope. There is a revenue side to the story too, and it is worth being honest about it. Spectrum auctions have turned into a cash cow for the finance department, and all funds raised through an auction go into general revenues. A recent spectrum auction brought nearly $9 billion into the federal coffers, with three large carriers accounting for the overwhelming majority of these funds. I have no objection to the government's raising money, but raising money and actually connecting people are two different things, and we keep treating them as if they were the same. There is a real policy contradiction in this. If the government's main objective is to raise as much revenue as possible for spectrum auctions, that can come at the expense of connecting more Canadians. When the government sells a telecom company a spectrum license and allows the company to never deploy it, or to deploy it very slowly, the public loses. This is a principle I have raised in the House before. During the 44th Parliament, I introduced Bill C-288, which was passed. It was aimed at making broadband service information more accurate. This was because Canadians were being sold one story about the Internet but were buying and living an entirely different one. That same idea belongs in this debate on spectrum policy. The coverage maps tell one story, but the people who live on those roads tell another. The map will colour an entire municipality green and call it served, while the people in that municipality can tell us, down to the bend in the road, exactly where the call drops every time. There is also the matter of spectrum that goes unused. We have had stretches in this country's history where a frequency has sat idle in rural and remote regions for years, serving no one, and the demand for connectivity has kept growing. Therefore, it is worth Parliament's asking whether our current rules put any real pressure on licence-holders to actually deploy, or whether smaller licensing areas, tougher deployment conditions and more enforcement might finally get that spectrum working for the people it is supposed to serve. Underneath all this debate sits the question of safety. A dropped call in downtown Ottawa is an inconvenience, but a dropped call on a rural highway in a Manitoba blizzard, with a vehicle off the road and the temperature dropping to -40°C, can be the difference between life and death. That is the same lesson the Titanic taught us over a century ago. We should not need to relearn this in 2026. This brings me to the legislation that is in front of us. 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. I will not pretend that the bill would solve the whole problem, because it would not, but it would open the door and give the House a chance to ask questions that have been long overdue. In the end, the question is a simple one: When we hand a company a piece of the public's airwaves, does it actually serve the public? It belongs to Canadians, and Canadians are entitled to know whether it is going to work for them. These are questions Parliament should take seriously, because Canadians, rural Canadians in particular, deserve action.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Oral Questions

Health

2026-06-17

“I want the health committee to investigate a spending scandal. The Liberal chair shut down our meeting to stop us. I say that's an abuse of power.”

Private Members' Business

National Framework on Sickle Cell Disease Act

2026-06-16

“This bill will spend a lot of money and I don't know if it's worth it. It tells the government to study expensive things but doesn't say who will pay. The framework is really broad and has no clear responsibilities or enforcement. I want the committee to assign clear responsibilities and timelines. I'm worried the bill oversteps into provincial jurisdiction. I want the government to prove these expensive programs will actually help before they spend more of your money on them.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak today about Bill S-201, an act respecting a national framework on sickle cell disease. Sickle cell disease is a devastating inherited blood disorder. It causes chronic pain, organ damage, serious infections and a shortened life expectancy. Our best estimates suggest that 6,000 Canadians are living with sickle cell disease right now. I say “estimates” deliberately because Canada has no coordinated data to tell us the actual number. We cannot track outcomes or evaluate treatments at scale or measure whether what we are doing is actually working. Without the data, it is nearly impossible to plan health care services, allocate resources appropriately or understand the full impact this disease has on patients and families. The Conservatives are proud to stand up for Canadians living with sickle cell disease. We were proud to vote in favour of recognizing June 19 as National Sickle Cell Awareness Day. This bill would build on that commitment by including measures to support public awareness campaigns and increase blood donation. We have also committed to implementing a rare disease strategy to support treatment development, and we have fought to safely speed up drug approvals for treatments already approved by peer jurisdictions. Let me explain what the bill would do. Bill S-201 would require the Minister of Health to develop and table a national framework on sickle cell disease within one year. That framework must cover nine substantive areas. These are health care professionals' training, a national research network and patient registry, evidence-based national standards for diagnosis and treatment, universal neonatal screening, public awareness campaigns, promoting blood donations to ensure diversity in the blood supply, the analysis of the potential tax credit for patients and caregivers, the inclusion of sickle cell disease in existing disability benefits and an analysis of the inclusion of sickle cell treatments in public drug insurance plans. The government would be required to table a follow-up implementation report within three years. The bill would also require the minister to consult with relevant colleagues, the provinces and territories, patients, caregivers, the medical community and researchers. There are provisions in this legislation that warrant careful scrutiny at committee. Let me start with what may be the most straightforward and most urgent piece of this bill, which is neonatal screening. Early detection saves lives. When sickle cell disease is caught at birth, families and clinicians can begin managing the condition before the first crisis. When we do not detect sickle cell disease early, children can suffer devastating complications that could have been prevented, like strokes, infections and organ damage. As of August 2024, universal newborn screening is already implemented in every province and territory, except Newfoundland and Labrador and Nunavut. The gap is real, but it is narrow. Rather than designing a sweeping national mandate, the more effective approach would be to ask what specific barriers are preventing implementation. I am looking forward to seeking clarity on the scope and potential models for neonatal screening at committee. Let me turn to some concerns about provincial jurisdiction. Health care delivery is and must remain the primary responsibility of the provinces. The Conservatives believe any federal health framework must be developed in partnership with the provinces and should not be handed down as a federal directive. The bill requires consultation, and that is welcome, but consultation is not partnership. We have seen too many federal health initiatives that check the consultation box and then proceed, regardless of what the provinces said. This framework must be built with the provinces, not around them. The bill proposes setting what it calls “evidence-based national standards for the diagnosis and treatment of sickle cell disease”. On the surface, it sounds sensible, but the standards of care in this country are established by medical professional associations operating under provincial and territorial jurisdiction. Any attempt by the federal government to unilaterally define those standards without meaningful provincial engagement would be both constitutionally questionable and practically counterproductive. We have seen how to do this well. Bill C-442, the Lyme disease framework from the 41st Parliament in 2013, focused on establishing shared guidelines, promoting best practices and encouraging knowledge sharing, not dictating clinical standards from Ottawa. The framework for cancers linked to firefighting took a similar approach with recommendations, information sharing and recognition of occupational diseases. These models work precisely because they respect jurisdictional boundaries while still advancing national coordination. Bill S-201 should follow the same template. The Conservatives want to ensure that our health legislation properly reflects the advisory nature of federal clinical guidance and reduces the risk of jurisdictional intrusion. Conservatives are also concerned about the accountability measures of this bill, or the lack thereof. The framework would cover nine major action areas spread across multiple organizations, but it has no clear assignment of responsibility or an enforcement mechanism. A framework that is so broad and unenforceable is simply a list of aspirations. Canadians with sickle cell disease want results, not platitudes. It would be beneficial for the health committee to consider clear accountability mechanisms. These could include identifying who is responsible for each deliverable, what the timeline is and how Canadians will know whether the commitments are being met. I also want to raise a concern that does not get enough attention in these debates, which is the cost. This bill does not include fiscal appropriation, which is standard for a private member's bill. However, it directs the government to study programs that have the potential to carry costs. A national research network would need dedicated infrastructure, staff and long-term operational support. Universal neonatal screening would need provincial buy-in and funding commitments. Public awareness campaigns would need sustained investment to reach the communities most affected. Health professionals' training would need a curriculum, coordination across medical schools and resources to deliver it. An analysis of a potential tax credit for individuals with sickle cell disease and their caregivers would need rigorous actuarial work. Expanding disability benefits to include sickle cell disease would carry fiscal implications that must be modelled before any commitments are made. Each of these programs would have a large price tag associated with them. Canadians deserve to know what these costs would be before this framework is finalized, yet no cost estimate from the Parliamentary Budget Officer has accompanied this bill. I have written to the Parliamentary Budget Officer to request one, and hope this is conducted for the committee's consideration. Costs and structure are not the only things we need to ask questions about. We must also consider what treatment options are available to Canadians living with sickle cell disease. Gene therapies that were once in the realm of science fiction are now a reality. In late 2023, both the United Kingdom and the United States approved Casgevy, a groundbreaking gene therapy, and the U.S. went further in improving a second option, Lyfgenia, at the same time, so there are two options. Canada approved Casgevy nearly a full year later, and Lyfgenia is still not available to Canadian patients. Once Health Canada approves a treatment, the wait is not over. Canadians on public insurance plans face a wait, on average, of three years from the time a drug is approved elsewhere to the time they can actually access it. That is insane. That is roughly one year in Health Canada's approval process, followed by two more years of provincial coverage negotiations through the pan-Canadian Pharmaceutical Alliance. It is absolutely insane that people would have to wait three years while they are in pain, their organs are being damaged and other countries' patients are receiving treatment. The Conservatives have committed to fixing this. If the therapy has already cleared rigorous regulatory review in peer jurisdictions, we should not be making Canadian patients wait years to access the same medicine. We have proposed safely accelerating approval for treatments already approved by peer jurisdictions. To be clear, our approach to rare diseases is not simply about drugs. I guess my time is up.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Statements by Members

Health

2026-06-15

“Liberals are blocking an investigation into a $300 million scandal. Liberals turned off cameras, shut down a committee, and a minister refused to come. Conservatives want to keep investigating this.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, thousands of Canadians are writing to the health committee demanding an investigation into the $300-million PrescribeIT scandal. However, Liberals MPs are silencing their voices and blocking an investigation. On April 28, the Liberal MP for Don Valley North turned off the committee cameras during an emergency meeting, and then she refused to say why. On May 5, the Liberal MP for Winnipeg West voted to shut down the committee to block the health minister from testifying. He was then caught telling his constituents online that he supports an investigation, while voting to shut it down. On June 1, the Liberal health minister refused to come to the health committee. On June 11, the Liberal chair abruptly adjourned the meeting and literally ran out the door to kill any investigation. Canadians believe in accountability, but the Liberals believe in cover-ups. Conservatives will not stop until Canadians know the full truth of the $300-million PrescribeIT failure and until the people responsible are held accountable.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Private Members' Business

Food and Drugs Act

2026-06-10

“This bill wants to fix a broken system. The system makes it hard for doctors to give rare drugs to sick people. The fix is to make a pre-approved drug list. Doctors can use this list without asking for each drug again and again. Conservatives like parts of this bill. But we have questions too. The bill has problems that could let bad drugs get approval. It could help people get hard drugs like meth and heroin. We must close these loopholes at committee.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, in this country, there are important life-saving drugs that Canadians suffering from serious conditions may not be able to access, not because the science is uncertain or the risks are unknown but because of the paperwork and the bureaucratic delays. That is the problem before us today. Health Canada's special access program was designed as a lifeline. It was designed for Canadians with serious or rare conditions when no approved treatment existed. The special access program was supposed to open a door to therapies already proven effective elsewhere. The intent was good, but the results have been a failure. In 2025, the special access program processed nearly 12,000 requests. Many of those were for drugs that Canadian physicians had requested before, drugs approved in jurisdictions where we consider regulatory peers, and drugs with years of real-world data behind them, yet each request is still treated as novel. Each application starts from scratch. A physician who has navigated this process a dozen times for a dozen patients with the same drug must continue to go through it again and again. There is no recognition of precedent or streamlining for well-established use cases. Instead, it is just more forms and more waiting. Part of the reason is structural. For rare conditions affecting small patient populations, Canada's market is sometimes not large enough to justify a full regulatory submission by manufacturers. The Canadian Organization for Rare Disorders has documented what this costs in human terms. Only 60% of rare disease treatments reach Canada at all, and those that do arrive up to six years after patients in the United States and Europe have access to them. For someone with a progressive, life-threatening illness, that can literally be the difference between life and death. Allowing a bureaucratic and broken system to withhold life-saving treatment from Canadians does not make drugs safer. The safety record of these therapies is already established by foreign regulators, by years of clinical use, and by the same Health Canada reviewers who approved the identical requests last month and the month before. The paperwork does not generate new knowledge, but it does consume time. For patients with serious conditions, time is one thing they just do not have. For many Canadians, the special access program becomes the only viable pathway to access treatment. Right now that pathway is hindered by layers of administration that fail to deliver the outcome that was intended. Bill C-265 intends to address this problem with a straightforward proposal. It would direct the Minister of Health to establish a standing, pre-approved list of non-marketed therapeutic products for serious or life-threatening conditions. Physicians would be able to prescribe directly from this list without starting from zero every time a new patient needs what the last patient received. Eligibility for this list is intended to be grounded in existing evidence. A product would need to have previously received special access program authorization, have held an authorization not withdrawn for safety reasons, or be currently approved by a recognized foreign regulator. Conservatives support advancing the bill to committee. I want to personally thank the member for Thunder Bay—Rainy River for his work on it. He has been open and collaborative throughout this process, and that is really special in these times. I know that the sponsor has seen this broken system first-hand, given his work as a doctor. That said, there are provisions in the bill that need to be fixed. First, the bill would create a presumption of approval when two specialist clinicians submit a joint treatment plan. On the surface, having two physicians validate a treatment plan would seem to add legitimacy to that course of action and help expedite emergency treatments. However, there are no provisions in the bill that would require those two clinicians to be independent of one another and of the treating physician. This could very easily lead to a situation where a relationship between two physicians, whether personal, professional or commercial, could cause one to pressure or influence the other to support a clinical treatment that in fact goes against their best clinical judgment. The second opinion means very little if it belongs to the doctor in the next office who owes the other one a favour, or is their supervisor or even a sibling or spouse. Members should consider an amendment to address the potential abuse and conflicts that could arise from this. Second, the bill contains no explicit exclusion of substances from the pre-approved list or the letter of authorization process. If the bill passes as presented, it would open the door for dangerous drugs to make it onto the pre-approved list. This would effectively create a loophole that would make it just as easy for people suffering from drug use to be prescribed methamphetamine as to be prescribed liquid caffeine. This is far from being a hypothetical concern. Through the special access program, requests for drugs such LSD and MDMA have in fact been made. Members will also recall that restrictions existed on the special access program to limit opioid diversion, under the Harper government. In 2013, then minister Rona Ambrose amended the program after learning that Health Canada had approved a request granting 21 patients with chronic addictions access to prescription heroin. However, the Trudeau Liberal government later lifted the restrictions that the Conservatives had imposed on illegal and harmful substances such as heroin and cocaine. Conservatives had put those restrictions in place for a reason. We will not support legislation that would open that door, given that the current government has approved decriminalization and supports taxpayer-funded hard drugs. To ensure that this legislation would not become another pathway to decriminalizing hard drugs, we will seek amendments at committee. Given that the sponsor has said, “We certainly have to ensure...that there is no diversion of those drugs”, I hope he will support these proposed changes. Third, the bill would permit pharmacists, hospitals and medical non-profit organizations, not just licensed practitioners, to nominate products for the pre-approved list. There is no definition as to what a medical non-profit organization is, which would open up the potential for major abuse. A large medical corporation could easily set up a non-profit organization to submit a drug approval request for its own product, and I am unsure why the sponsor did not limit these criteria to physicians. Therefore, Conservatives will propose amendments to add guardrails about who should be allowed to submit requests for drugs to be added to the pre-approved list. This should not be something every man and his dog can do. We need criteria that have proper limits so these requests would be coming from professionals who use the special access program in their day-to-day work. If not, the proposal would risk being abused by activists. There is a larger point worth making: The bill exists because Health Canada's bureaucracy has made the existing special access program so difficult to use that Parliament is now being asked to build a separate lane around it. We would not be reforming a system. The health minister has failed to reform her own department. The bill would offer some relief. However, the deeper problem would remain unaddressed. The Conservatives would go to committee with important questions, including questions on the independence between attesting clinicians, questions on the exclusion of substances from the scope of the pre-approved list and questions on who would be permitted to submit products for consideration. These technicalities are the difference between a bill that would work and a bill that would create new problems while doing little to solve old ones. Done right, the legislation could reduce the burden on physicians who spend hours on repetitive applications instead of treating patients. It could get proven therapies to Canadians who have no other options. However, done wrong, in the hands of drug manufacturers, a back door around the rules could fan the flames of the opioid crisis and worsen the tragedy that has already been permitted to grow to alarming proportions under the Liberal government. The measure of a health care system is not how well it protects its own processes. It is whether the people who need care actually get it. On that measure, the special access program has been failing for too long. Doctors should be caring for Canadians and not wasting endless hours a day filling out paperwork for bureaucrats in Ottawa. Bill C-265, strengthened at committee, could begin to make meaningful progress for Canadians who deserve results.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Adjournment Proceedings

2026-06-08

“Just say yes or no. Should we investigate the $300 million spent on PrescribeIT?”

“I want the government to investigate a scandal. Canadians are sad about HIV. A different politician should explain herself. The government is wasting money.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to be here at the late show. Canadians across the country are demanding that the health committee investigate the Liberals' $300-million PrescribeIT scandal. When Conservatives called on the Auditor General to investigate, the Liberal Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health moved to turn off the committee cameras. Since then, she has refused to explain herself to the committee. She has refused to explain herself to Parliament. She has refused to explain herself to the media. She has refused to explain herself to her constituents, and she has refused to explain herself to Canadians. Now the Liberals are pulling an even more disgusting political stunt. They are using Canadians suffering with HIV as an excuse to bury the truth. They are hiding behind an HIV study, a study that Conservatives have publicly agreed to support, to stop the health committee from working and to block an investigation into PrescribeIT. Even HIV organizations are now calling out the Liberals for politicizing this issue. Let us think about that. The Liberals are so desperate to cover up $300 million in wasted taxpayers' money that they are using Canadians suffering with HIV as a political shield. My question is simple. Will the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health commit today to supporting a full investigation into the PrescribeIT scandal, yes or no?

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Oral Questions

Health

2026-06-08

“The Liberals are blocking a committee investigation into a $300-million scandal. They're stopping meetings and preventing the health minister from testifying. If the Liberals aren't hiding anything, they should allow a full investigation.”

Statements by Members

Math Achievement in Plumas

2026-06-08

“A kid at a local school did well in a math contest. Good job, kid. That's all.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize a truly outstanding achievement by a young resident student from Plumas, Manitoba. Lenjo Uebersax, a student from Plumas Elementary School, has been named Mathletics' top grade 8 student in Canada and ranks 30th worldwide. This is a huge achievement. As his teacher Mark Dodds explained, this is “one of the largest academic competitions in the world”. More recently, through the Mathletics program, Lenjo completed the entire grade 9 math curriculum and, as of last Friday, began his grade 10 math curriculum independently. Plumas Elementary's principal, Fiona Rempel, extended congratulations on behalf of the school, noting that Lenjo's exceptional work ethic and determination are putting their small school on the map. Lenjo's accomplishments are very well deserved. Congratulations to Lenjo for his remarkable success. We look forward to following him on his journey of academia.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Adjournment Proceedings

2026-06-04

“You didn't answer my question. I asked why you're blocking the minister from testifying. What are you hiding? I want to keep asking this until you give a real answer.”

“I want to blame the other party for something. I hope this scandal will make them look bad.”

Oral Questions

Health

2026-06-03

“I want the health committee to investigate a program that spent a lot of money. Why won't the other party let us investigate?”

Government Orders

Business of Supply

2026-06-02

“Children are in danger. The government supports drug consumption sites near schools. Drug consumption sites are bad for children. Fentanyl use is common at these sites. I question whether you think exposing children to drug use is safe.”

Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, I will bring it back to how the topic today actually impacts many Canadians. This is a very special subject, and it impacts so many Canadians. It is about opioids. The member was talking about the safety of children. Right now, we have a government that actually endorses fentanyl use and drug consumption sites next to kids here in Canada. Through an exemption, there are actually federally approved sites right now in Canada operating 50 steps away from schools and day cares. In these drug consumption sites, there is fentanyl used 50% of the time. The member has totally skewed what he means by safety for children. I cannot imagine the member's children being exposed to these drug sites every day going to school, so my question for him is, does he actually think it is safe to use fentanyl beside children?

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Government Orders

Business of Supply

2026-05-28

“You want to avoid my question by talking about crime. I won't let you. I demand you tell everyone exactly how long this 'temporary' program really lasts.”

“You call this program temporary, but it actually lasts four years. That's not what most people would call temporary. I don't think you're being straight with us.”

“You didn't answer the question. I asked if a rapist should get luxury healthcare and you talked about deportations instead.”

“A man raped multiple women and even killed a young woman, but he could still get fancy health benefits from the government. Is that really okay with you?”

“You said something weird. I want to make it look like you're soft on crime.”

“I want you to explain why you called criminals 'vulnerable people'. That label makes no sense to me.”

“Does the minister know her program stops paying once the provinces start? I want her to admit there's a gap.”