Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with not only a good friend of mine, but in fact a great friend of the Sikh community, the hon. member for Winnipeg North.
The interim federal health program, or IFHP, is a temporary program. It supports people who do not yet have provincial or territorial health coverage. It is also an important tool to protect the health and safety of Canadians while supporting vulnerable people who are seeking Canada's protection.
Let me address the claims behind the motion before us.
The first is on the growth in costs. Yes, costs under the IFHP have increased, but we must be honest about why. The cost of this program depends mainly on two things: how many asylum claims are made, and how long it takes to make final decisions.
When claim volumes are high and processing times are long, costs rise. The good news is that under our government, asylum claims were down by about one-third last year. This will reduce pressure on the IFHP. Through Bill C-12 and other measures, we are closing loopholes at the border, tightening visa rules and discouraging misuse of the asylum system. These actions reduce future surges and shorten delays. That is how we control costs responsibly.
Second, the opposition relies heavily on the projections from the Parliamentary Budget Officer. We respect the work of the PBO, but this report presents an incomplete picture. It does not account for the recent changes to the IFHP announced in budget 2025, the expected impact of Bill C-12 on claim volumes and processing time, and the possibility of further future adjustments. It also assumes that the government will do nothing more, which is simply not true. When opposition members claim that the program will cost far more in the future, they are relying on projections that ignore reforms already under way.
Third is the claim that asylum claimants receive better care than Canadians. The IFHP provides basic and temporary coverage while claims are processed by the Immigration and Refugee Board. Essential care, such as visits to a doctor or a hospital, will continue to be fully covered. This protects public health and avoids higher costs later. For supplementary benefits, such as some vision care and medications, we are making measured changes. Starting in May, there will be a $4 copayment for filling or refilling a prescription and a 30% copayment for other supplementary services. These changes were announced in budget 2025. They are expected to save hundreds of millions of dollars each year. They also align the IFHP with other publicly funded programs, including those for people on social assistance. At this time, essential care remains fully covered. We will monitor the impact closely to protect public health and meet our legal and humanitarian obligations.
Fourth, the motion claims that asylum claims are preventing Canadians from getting health care. There is no evidence for this. It is difficult to measure exactly how much pressure asylum claimants place on the health care system, and rejected claimants are only one portion of the IFHP users.
My two daughters are physicians who are proudly serving Canadians, and I can say that Canada's health care challenges mainly come from a shortage of doctors and nurses, an aging population and long-standing system pressures. Blaming asylum seekers will not fix wait times. It will not train nurses, and it will not build hospitals. That is why our government is investing in health care for Canadians.
More than six million Canadians are now eligible for the Canadian dental care plan, which is saving families hundreds of dollars a year. With budget 2025, we are investing $5 billion in health care infrastructure. We are all well aware that this is the first time leadership has been shown by a federal government to intervene in this particular program. Through pharmacare, mental health investments and co-operation with provinces and territories, we are strengthening health care based on medical need, not the ability to pay.
Let me turn to the proposals in the motion. Part A calls for reviewing benefits to find savings. We already agree with this principle. That is why we introduced copayments for supplementary benefits. These changes will save hundreds of millions of dollars each year. We can remain open to further examination, but the motion ignores what has already been done.
Part B calls for limiting rejected claimants to emergency life-saving care only. This sounds simple, but it is not. Some people cannot be removed for humanitarian reasons. Limiting them to emergency-only care would create a contradiction. We would be saying we cannot send them back but also denying them basic primary care. This also risks pushing people into hospital emergency rooms instead of to family doctors. That increases costs and pressure on the health care system. We can show limited openness to reviewing how long coverage lasts, but the Conservative proposal would likely create higher costs and worse outcomes.
Part C calls for more transparency. Our government is already transparent. We have provided information to Parliament. We asked the PBO to examine the program. We answered Order Paper questions. The number of people covered and cost are already public. A new formal reporting law is therefore unnecessary.
Part D calls for immediate removal of non-citizens convicted of serious crimes. In Canada, criminal law comes first. People must face justice and serve their sentences before removal. If we change this rule, we would remove a real punishment for serious crime. People could commit crimes and simply be sent home.
Recently I had a discussion with one of the top young criminal defence lawyers, Gagan Nahal, who is also running for a city council position. I wish him the best. In fact, he agreed with me that they should be punished and serve sentences before they are sent back to their home country. The motion would weaken deterrence and threaten public safety as well.
I also want to speak about politics and accountability. The Conservatives say this motion is about accountability in health care spending, but if they truly care about accountability in the health care system, they would support my private member's bill, Bill C-239, which proposes to strengthen accountability under the Canada Health Act. The Conservatives cannot say they want accountability on one hand and then block an accountability bill on the other.
This shows the motion is not really about fixing health care; it is about playing politics with vulnerable people. The IFHP is not only about compassion. It is about public health and smart spending. Many asylum claimants will eventually become protected persons, permanent residents and possibly citizens. If we deny basic health care now, we will likely pay much higher costs later through the emergency care system. The government is acting responsibly by reducing asylum claim volumes, speeding up decisions, introducing copayments and investing in health care for Canadians. While the Conservatives debate what services to cut, we are focused on health care based on medical needs and fairness.
