Dan Mazier

“What happens if an asylum seeker does not pay into the government copay program?”

“Mr. Chair, what if an asylum claimant does not pay for the government’s copay program?”

“A man who was rejected for asylum still gets government-funded health benefits, like counselling and physiotherapy, after committing violence in the United States. I want the health minister to admit this is wrong.”

“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?”

“The member did not answer my question. I want to know why the Liberal parliamentary secretary voted to turn off the cameras during a committee meeting about a failed 300-million-dollar program.”

“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?”

“The government gives rejected asylum seekers extra health benefits, even when they commit serious crimes. I want to know why the government gives them better health care than Canadians get.”

“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?”

“A new report shows nearly 74,000 rejected asylum seekers can still get free health benefits like physiotherapy and home care, even if they are wanted by police. I want the government to explain why these people get better health care than working 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?”

In response to a question from Gabriel Ste-Marie

“The government already takes too much money from Canadians. I want the member to explain how much the clean fuel standard raises the cost of food.”

“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.”

“I want Parliament to pass this bill quickly. It makes penalties harsher for anyone who assaults a health care worker or a first responder. These workers face too much violence on the job, and the law needs to protect them.”

“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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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 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. 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. 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. 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. 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.”

“The government spent $300 million on an electronic prescription program, but people were still using faxes after 10 years. I want to know why the parliamentary secretary voted to turn off the cameras while our committee was investigating this.”

“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?”

“The Liberals wasted 300 million dollars on a digital prescription program that failed and was shut down. Hardly anyone used it, and the head of the non-profit running it made nearly 900,000 dollars a year. This shows the government wastes money without 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. 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.”

• Off topic
  ?

  Question or comment in debate

  Relevance 8 of 100

  Only 1% of this question directly addressed the speech or the topic being debated.

  See full analysis →

“The government spent $300 million on a digital prescription program that failed and is being shut down. The minister never raised concerns about it. Why did the minister let this money be wasted?”

“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?”