Parliamentary Speeches

Mr. Speaker, the former CEO of Canada Health Infoway, Michael Green, was fired after the Conservatives exposed his role in the $300-million PrescribeIT scandal. We have since obtained his termination letter. That termination letter granted Mr. Green a massive severance package that included a full year of salary and benefits, months of pension contributions, months of car allowance, vacation pay, more performance pay and an additional bonus after he was fired for the $300-million failure. The health minister's very own official is on the board of Canada Health Infoway, so my question is simple: Did the health minister's representative vote in favour of this massive severance package for PrescribeIT's CEO, yes or no?

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals did not answer my question. He was going on about an auditor trail. He did not answer my question. My question was about a severance package awarded to the CEO who oversaw the $300-million PrescribeIT failure. The health minister's very own official is on Canada Health Infoway's board. My question was simple: Did the health minister's representative vote in favour of the massive severance package for the PrescribeIT CEO, yes or no?

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Liberal chair of the health committee suspended the meeting, with the cameras off, blocking emergency meetings from being held in public over the summer. Today, he cancelled the final health committee meeting entirely. This is a blatant abuse of power to shut the health committee down and block an investigation into the $300‑million PrescribeIT scandal. Conservatives are ready to work throughout the summer. Why did the Liberal chair of the health committee abruptly cancel Thursday's meeting to block an investigation into PrescribeIT?

Mr. Speaker, it is always an honour to present a petition on behalf of constituents. I rise, for the 14th 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 have read in the local newspapers, including a November report that the Dauphin RCMP is 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. 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, 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals on the health committee are blocking an investigation into the $300-million PrescribeIT scandal. For over a month, they have stopped the committee from holding any new meetings to get answers. They have shut down meetings. They have turned off committee cameras. They have blocked the health minister from testifying. Now, in a disgusting political stunt, they are using Canadians suffering with HIV as an excuse to bury the truth. If the Liberals have nothing to hide, will they come clean today and allow a full investigation into the PrescribeIT $300-million scandal?

Mr. Speaker, it is always an honour to present a petition on behalf of constituents. I rise, for the 13th 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 is searching for a wanted man with three separate arrest warrants. 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 that directly threaten their livelihoods and their communities. I fully support the good people of Dauphin.

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?

Mr. Speaker, documents now reveal that the Liberals' $300-million PrescribeIT failure processed fewer than 5% of prescriptions at its peak. That means that, after burning through $300 million, PrescribeIT failed to deliver 95% of prescriptions. When Conservatives on the health committee tried to investigate, Liberal MPs turned off the cameras. Then they abruptly shut down meetings. Yesterday, they blocked an emergency meeting to prevent the health minister from testifying. Why are the Liberals blocking the health committee from investigating the $300-million PrescribeIT scandal?

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. 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 that directly threaten their livelihoods and their community. I fully support the good people of Dauphin.

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?

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?

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, 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, 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.

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.

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?

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?