Debates of Feb. 24th, 2026

Ukraine

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour for me to rise on behalf of his Majesty's loyal opposition to speak on behalf of the Conservative Party of Canada.

Conservatives have always stood with Ukraine, from Macdonald to Mulroney to Harper. Today, in solidarity with everyone in the House and across this country, we stand proudly with Ukraine.

Four years ago, we watched Putin launch his full-scale invasion of Ukraine, a war he said that he would win in three days. It has been a barbaric war and invasion that has been gut-wrenching to witness. It is unjust what Russia is doing in Ukraine. Russia is bringing destruction and bloodshed to Europe that we have not seen for generations.

Russian soldiers have been killing innocent civilians. Over 15,000 Ukrainian civilians have been killed. We have witnessed them use rape as a weapon, and we have seen them dig mass graves. Russia has been targeting civilian infrastructure. We recently witnessed different energy systems being knocked out, including all the electrical generation plants, water infrastructure and rail. They have also targeted things such as Kyiv's Okhmatdyt children's hospital and Odesa's Transfiguration Cathedral. I do not think any of us will ever forget the Mariupol theatre.

Over 19,000 Ukrainian children have been kidnapped by Putin and his barbarians. They have been taken back to Russia, where they have been reprogrammed. Through this brutal war, over 55,000 Ukrainian soldiers are dead and over 600,000 soldiers have been wounded. Families have been torn apart as they have mourned their lost and cared for those who have been hurt. Vichna slava heroyam. May the memories of these heroes be eternal.

For four years, we have been inspired by the resilience and strength of the people of Ukraine. We have watched the entrepreneurs run their businesses within earshot of the front line. We have witnessed the ingenuity and innovation of everyone in Ukraine, how they have been able to keep in this fight for four years, how they are fighting and how they continue to evolve in this brutal war that the Kremlin thought it would win in less than a week. We have witnessed the courage and selflessness of members of the Armed Forces of Ukraine. They are fighting not only for Ukraine, but also for our shared values of democracy, freedom and human rights.

For four years, we have been grateful for all the Canadians from coast to coast to coast who have stood up to help, the volunteers who are serving and who are getting money raised to help those who were left behind in Ukraine. I thank all of those unwavering Canadians. They have opened up their hearts, wallets, homes and businesses to all of the Ukrainians who have sought refuge here.

I thank the Ukrainian Canadian Congress and all of the provincial branches, as well as all of the organizations they work with, for their tireless efforts to ensure that newcomers could receive settlement services, to find them employment, to be there as their conduit back to Ukraine and to coordinate so many fundraising activities for the efforts in Ukraine.

I thank the Government of Canada, on behalf of the Conservatives, for the efforts that it has done in supporting Ukraine through all of this, as well as the provincial and territorial governments for the programs they have offered to everyone who has sought refuge.

To the Ukrainians who have come here and now call Canada home, I thank them for all their contributions. We know that, while they are here working in their jobs and participating in Canadian society, they are still worrying about their loved ones who were left behind. As the Conservative leader stated earlier today, we look forward to the day when they will once again raise their sons and daughters under a peaceful sky in a free and sovereign land.

On Sunday, across Canada, there were rallies held in support of Ukraine, and at many of these rallies, we prayed for peace, but we know that Vladimir Putin does not want peace as long as he thinks he is winning. The minister talked about trust, and no one trusts Vladimir Putin. All wars end at the negotiating table, so we have to make sure that Ukraine has a strong hand. We have to make Ukraine strong. We can do more as Canadians and as a government. Conservatives are asking the government to continue to use all the sanction tools it has at its disposal to align with our allies to hold Putin, his kleptocrats, his oligarchs and the Russian military to account for all of their war crimes.

We need to help defund Putin's war machine by displacing Russian oil and gas by selling Canada's ethical oil and LNG to Europe. Former prime minister Stephen Harper led the charge in kicking Putin out of the G8. We have to remain steadfast and not let anyone try to convince them to allow Russia back into the G7. Putin and Russia do not belong at the major tables in the world.

We thank the government today for its announcement about Operation Unifier and Operation Reassurance, which were started under the Harper Conservatives. The continuation of those programs is paramount to the success of Ukraine and the defence of our NATO allies, but we also have to invest in Canada. We need to make sure that our Canadian Armed Forces get the equipment and build up the stockpiles that we need to defend ourselves here. As we ensure that the Canadian Armed Forces are ready to stand up to Moscow and its authoritarian allies, we need to make sure that we do more with what we already have.

While we are rebuilding our fleets, and while we are replacing our equipment, our weapons and our kit, let us not waste a bunch of taxpayer money in Canada on decommissioning those stockpiles and sending them to the scrap heap. The Conservative leader, two years ago, asked the government to send Ukraine our stock of CRV7 rockets, which were about to be sent to the scrap heap, and 87,000 rockets, because of the ask from our leader, have now been sent to Ukraine. I thank the leader for making that request and helping Ukraine save lives, and I thank the government for listening. As we look at other retiring fleets, such as our light armoured vehicles, armoured ambulances and other weapons systems, let us donate them instead of decommissioning them as we find new equipment for our military.

Finally, Putin and his barbaric military must be held to account for their war crimes and crimes against humanity. They must be dragged in front of The Hague and the International Criminal Court.

Taras Shevchenko, a poet laureate and an inspiration to multiple generations of Ukrainians, said 200 years ago, “If you fight, you will overcome”, which reminds me of Winston Churchill's “blood, toil, tears and sweat” speech of 1940 in the House of Commons. He said, “victory at all costs, victory in spite of all terror, victory, however long and hard the road may be; for without victory, there is no survival.” I can say that without victory, there will be no peace in Ukraine.

Slava Ukraini.

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, just five years ago, Ukraine was the breadbasket of Europe. Its fertile, rich and plentiful lands provided good soil that was perfect for growing crops. Large fields of sunflowers covered the landscape, their faces turned towards the sun. Barely five years ago, Ukraine was an almost peaceful European country. It is true that there were serious conflicts in Crimea. It is true that there was unrest in the Donbas region. However, Ukraine was not facing a death threat. The crisis was not existential. Then, war came four years ago.

War came, and in its wake came horrors, suffering and tears. Thousands of women have been killed. Why? Hundreds of women have been raped. It is a tactic of war used by the occupiers to sow terror among Ukrainians. Hundreds of children have been killed. Why? Thousands of children have been forcibly deported to Russia, torn from their families. War had come.

There have been roughly two million casualties, deaths and injuries among soldiers on both sides. More than 15,000 civilians have been killed. Why? Nearly 10 million people have had to flee their homes and abandon their pre-war lives in the hope of having a life after the war. Why? What is the point of all this? Can any meaning be found in the deaths of all these women, all these children, all these people? What meaning can be found in the deadly drone strikes in Kyiv and the armoured vehicles rolling through Ukraine's wheat fields? What twisted ambition can justify this endless daily tragedy? Can anyone offer a satisfactory answer to this simple question: Why?

The war in Ukraine has dragged on for four years. If enough pressure is put on Russia, there may be a way out. However, when our hopes for peace lie in the hands of Putin and Donald Trump, is there really any reason to hope? Well, the answer is in the words of Ukrainian poet Lesya Ukrainka, who wrote:

...through all my tears I still shall laugh,
Sing songs despite my troubles;
Have hope despite all odds,
I want to live! Away, you sorrowful thoughts!

Let us hope. Let us stand with the people of Ukraine and choose hope. Let us choose to believe that this war will end, that Russia will come to its senses and that this deadly stubbornness will eventually run out of steam. Let us choose to believe that Ukrainians will use their courage to rebuild their homes and that they will no longer be forced to pick up arms and bury their loved ones. Let us choose to believe that there is a way out and that this sad and absurd war will eventually come to an end.

On behalf of the Bloc Québécois, I say to all Ukrainians that we are behind them all the way. One day, peace will come. We must have hope, even in despair.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise in the House to speak on behalf of the NDP on this very sad day.

February 24, 2022, is a day that will go down in infamy. Without any justification or valid reason, dictator Vladimir Putin brutally attacked Ukraine and the Ukrainian people. For four years now, Ukrainians have been suffering and living in fear and terror with a colossal number of military and civilian victims.

For the first time since the collapse of the former Yugoslavia, Europe has seen war again with all its brutality, massacres, suffering and crimes. We are talking not only about war crimes, but also about crimes against humanity. Rape is being used as a weapon of war and there have been mass kidnappings of Ukrainian children to brainwash them and cause them to lose their own identity.

Every day, every week, there is death. There are drones and bombings. People live in constant fear. There are 3.4 million internally displaced persons within Ukraine, which is paying the heavy price of a dictator who is seeking to expand his influence and who is refusing to respect the peoples around him.

I think we should salute the courage of the Ukrainian people, who have stood firm despite everything for four years now; four years of massacres and rape, four years of living in the cold among the ruins of infrastructure, hospitals and schools. As a democracy, I think we have a duty to show our full support for Ukraine.

Ukraine's honorary consul in Montreal has often said something that has kept coming back to me in recent months, if not years. He said that if Russia stops fighting, it will end the war, but if Ukrainians stop defending themselves, it will end Ukraine. The outcome is totally different. That is why, as others have said before, for the Ukrainian people, this is an existential fight for their survival, for their existence, for their territory, for their territorial integrity and for their civilian population.

Given that Ukrainian men and women are fighting and dying on the front lines today, I think we need to be keenly aware of something: This front line is not just the front line of the Ukrainian territory. It is the front line of our values, of Europe, of democracy, of the rule of law, of respect for human rights and of respect for the self-determination of peoples. That is why we this involves each and every one of us.

Saving lives is paramount. Respecting the will of the Ukrainian people is the first priority. However, there is also the question of the kind of world we want to live in. Do we accept a world where brutality becomes the norm, where international law is flouted and where everything is based on power dynamics? Would we rather have a world built on dialogue, multilateralism, respect and decisions that are made on the basis of law and not brute force?

This has been happening for four years in Ukraine, but we also have an American president south of the border who has a tendency to want to do the same thing. Do we want to live in a world where we respect people's right to self-determination, or do we want to live in a world of spheres of influence, where we believe that if it is our backyard, we have the right to do anything, including invade, massacre and kill?

I think we need to have an important discussion about defending international law, but also about the kind of international relations we want to build and have on the planet. That is fundamental. When I talk about international law, I also mean respecting its institutions, such as the International Criminal Court, which has issued an arrest warrant for dictator Vladimir Putin.

I think that, as Quebeckers and Canadians, we should always show support for the decisions of the International Criminal Court and the International Court of Justice. I hope that those responsible for the massacres, war crimes and crimes against humanity will be brought to justice.

As parliamentarians, we must continue to support Ukraine. As citizens, let us continue to welcome Ukrainians with open arms. More than 200,000 people have found refuge here. It would be nice for those who wish to return safely to their homes and their country to be able to do so. Failing that, we are prepared to welcome them for as long as necessary. Let us continue to show our solidarity. Let us continue to be there to say that we stand with the Ukrainian people, so that they can one day be treated with respect.

Slava Ukraini.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, today, it is almost impossible to imagine and believe that, for the past four years, there has been a war in Ukraine that is the result of the brutality of one country, one man: Mr. Putin and his pointless and cruel war.

We are united in this country. We are united in this Parliament. I want to thank every one of my colleagues who spoke, including the hon. Minister of Defence, my friend and colleague from Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, the member for Lac-Saint-Jean and the member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie.

I completely agree that we stand with Ukraine. We stand with the people of Ukraine. It is unacceptable that our world is being torn apart by a war that was impossible to imagine five years ago.

When we think of the naïveté that we had, the wonderful thought of the political theorist Fukuyama, it seemed so clear that we had The End of History, as he wrote in 1992, that the political and ideological evolution of nations led inevitably to a time of the rule of law, to liberal democracies that lived within a set of rules that were predictable.

A land war in Europe?

It was impossible to imagine. It could not be true.

When Putin invaded Ukraine, we saw the signs. We saw it was coming, but it still seemed far too impossible to believe. I will never forget February 24, 2022. For the first time, I put on yellow and blue ribbons, and I thought that I would put them on every day until this awful war was over.

Now, Putin thought he could end it in three weeks. I thought the world, the community of nations, would stand with Ukraine so clearly that it would not be long before this was over. The sense of the courage of President Zelenskyy, I thought, was the variable that Putin did not count on. He thought that not that many Ukrainians would stand up and defend their country. He thought, as did the United States at that time, that when they said, “Do not worry, Mr. Zelenskyy, we are sending a plane for you,” and he said, “I need ammunition; I don't need a ride,” that was the surprise: a genuine hero of his country, someone actually elected, someone who had been a comic on television. He was the unexpected variable of courage that was so unusual in our times, when leadership is in name only.

President Zelenskyy addressed us here for the first time almost four years ago, on a TV screen. I so wished for the day that he could come back, when there was peace in Ukraine and we could celebrate him as the leader who survived a dreadful and unjust war. We still pray for that.

We know that Putin miscalculated. He thought he could end a war in three weeks, but he miscalculated the corruption of his own military, the lack of consideration for what it would mean to the world, and the solidarity of Europe. Today, on the fourth anniversary, the President of the European Union is there in Ukraine. Today, in the United Nations, a resolution was carried whereby 107 nations said, “We stand with Ukraine. We stand with peace.”

Today, President Zelenskyy spoke of Putin and of his lifetime political career of destruction, of hatred, of war. He actually said, of Putin, “He is war itself.” He said that to stand with him is to stand with unending war.

I cannot help but feel, as I always have since we first started debating in this place what we would do for Ukraine, that we have not done enough. In some ways we cannot do enough. We have NATO. We have the United Nations. We have massive efforts.

I am grateful, as my colleagues have said, that the Government of Canada has consistently stood with Ukraine. I am grateful we have welcomed Ukrainian refugees to Canada. However, more should be done with sanctions. We need to cripple the Russian economy. We need to do more. We need to seize the assets of oligarchs and see that they are liquidated and that those funds go to the Ukrainian people and the Ukrainian government.

War cannot be the solution to war. More bombs do not bring peace. As other members of Parliament have said today, peace will come at a negotiating table. It is extremely important and fundamental that Mr. Putin understand that Canada, every single last one of us, stands with Ukraine, which means Russia has made itself a pariah. When the government changes, perhaps we can welcome it again into the community of nations, but there was no Russian flag at the Olympics. There will not be a Russian flag where civilized people gather, because we recognize what President Zelenskyy has said: Putin is “war itself”.

Now, as we stand here on the fourth anniversary of the beginning of that impossible war, we must make peace possible.

We must choose peace. We must work tirelessly and do what we can to ensure that there is peace around the world, particularly for the children of Ukraine and for the people of Ukraine.

For all those who have suffered and died at the hands of Russian forces, and, yes, I grieve with the Russian mothers too as they have an impossible leader who has taken them to heartbreak and disaster, peace cannot just be a dream. We have to make it real. We have to rescue the Ukrainian children who were kidnapped from their families. We have to reunite those families. We have to pour into Ukraine the help it needs so desperately.

With those words, I join all colleagues here in saying, slava Ukraini, peace and victory to Ukraine.

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Colleagues, thank you for your words of support for our friends, the people of Ukraine.

The friendship between our two countries spans generations and centuries. Canada was the first western country to recognize Ukraine's independence on December 2, 1991. With a Ukrainian Canadian community of approximately 1.3 million people, Canada has one of the largest Ukrainian diasporas in the world.

It has been four years since Russia launched a full-scale invasion of Ukraine, in clear violation of its sovereignty and territorial integrity.

The House of Commons, which is often divided on many issues, continues to reach a consensus on the issue of Ukraine. Since February 2022, we have passed several resolutions on the Russian invasion, an invasion that is a violation of the rules-based international order and is contrary to democratic values.

It is with the utmost respect and admiration that I note that the counterpart of this House in Ukraine, the Verkhovna Rada, under the leadership of Chairman Ruslan Stefanchuk, has remained active and functioning since the onset of the full-scale war. The message to its citizens and to the world is unequivocal: Although Ukraine is under attack, democratic institutions matter and continue to play a central role in fending off Russia's aggression.

As we mark this sombre day and reflect on the tragic consequences of this aggression, we recognize the unwavering resilience that all Ukrainians demonstrate.

In the House and in this country, we are united and inspired by Ukraine. We stand in solidarity with our friends until a just and lasting peace is achieved.

Thank you.

Pursuant to order made on Monday, February 23, I wish to inform the House that because of the statements, the time provided for Government Orders will be extended by 37 minutes.

The House resumed consideration of the motion.

Opposition Motion—Interim Federal Health Program

[Helena Konanz, Conservative, Similkameen—South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Mr. Speaker, rejected asylum seekers quickly realize they can create near-endless extensions for years with access to specialty medical care they do not have in their home countries. It swiftly adds to the backlog, which in turn adds to the cost. By the end of this fiscal year, the annual cost will be $986 million. By the end of this decade, the annual cost will be $1.5 billion. Those are not my figures; they are the Parliamentary Budget Officer's figures. Anyone who doubts these can ask him in person.

His report also shows that in the early days of the Trudeau government, the number of interim federal health program beneficiaries was around 100,000 and was split evenly between asylum claims and refugee cases. Today, it stands at around 600,000 beneficiaries, more than two-thirds of whom are asylum claimants, with a much smaller number than before being refugees. It is important to note that when these are refugee cases, approval does not mean staying on this program indefinitely but seeing only to some temporary medical issues. At the same time, they are transferred into provincial health programs so they can then potentially work and pay back into our system. Asylum claimants remain on the program entirely through the long and winding Liberal backlog.

Another reason this federal program has increased in cost from the tens of millions to the soon-to-be billions is the recurring issue we heard about at the committee from witnesses of specialist doctors who are providing these services overcharging the immigration department due to a lack of oversight of billing. According to Dr. Arun Anand, physicians who provide services to claimants are charging the federal government more. He said, “because it is uninsured and there's less accountability, physicians are more aggressive with their billing practices. They charge premiums on these programs and services” and “because services are not covered by provincial plans, physicians can bill up to five times more for their physician fees in these programs”.

I know what the members opposite will tell me. First, it is that I oppose assisting people in need, and that is completely false. I want our nation to be the welcoming nation it has always been, one that welcomes someone like me and the many of us in this room who came from all across the world. What I oppose is people who file false asylum claims being rewarded with specialty health care, benefits like physiotherapy, which too many Canadians cannot access. I am not opposed to someone being saved in an ER. I am opposed to them getting free eyeglasses after they commit extortion.

If the members opposite would like the policies they say will fix this mess to be studied thoroughly by our Parliamentary Budget Officer, might I suggest they join me at the health committee when I am done here this afternoon to tell their own Liberal colleagues to end the filibustering they have been up to for the last couple of weeks so that we can look into this, find out the truth and make our health system and our immigration system better.

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, I would respectfully encourage my colleague opposite, if we want to maintain a place in Parliament to continue to provide compassionate and welcoming places here in Canada, to not put opposition motions on the floor concerning something that is 0.00004% of the entire expenditure of the Government of Canada in any given year, and that is for legitimate asylum claims. They like to stand up and make the suggestion that individuals who have been convicted of crimes are also benefiting from this policy. That is simply not true.

Why is she against individuals like the Ukrainian asylum claimants who are here? We just celebrated and recognized the contribution of Ukraine. We have vulnerable individuals. Why is she against them having due process in our asylum system and having basic coverage?

[Helena Konanz, Conservative, Similkameen—South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure the member was listening. I know that only half of my speech occurred while he was sitting here, but we are talking about rejected asylum seekers, some of them criminals. I think the worst thing is that the government has no idea actually how many there are. If he wants to learn more about this, he can go to the health committee meeting that is happening right now, or he can also look at the PBO report that states that this is going to cost us billions if it continues as it is.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I know that my hon. colleague has done incredible work on the health committee. In our province of British Columbia, and I know our colleague is experiencing this in her region as well, we are seeing maternity wards that are closed down. We are seeing emergency rooms that are closed down because we do not have enough doctors. The assertions from the other side are that we are anti-immigrant on this side, which is completely egregious to even say. What we are against are known fraudulent immigrant cases, applicants who are jumping in front of veterans, jumping in front of everyday Canadians, jumping in front of approved asylum seekers and getting the health care treatment that the rest of those groups cannot get.

I want to ask my hon. colleague if she is hearing any more information and stories in her own riding that she could share.

[Helena Konanz, Conservative, Similkameen—South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Mr. Speaker, what I resent is members from the Liberal Party downplaying an issue that is very important for every Canadian. Six million Canadians are without doctors. As for my own riding, I could actually, probably, google my riding right now, because there might be another hospital closed suddenly. It happens on a regular basis. Princeton was just closed a couple of days ago. How would anyone like it if they drove up to a hospital with their child, who might have just broken their arm, and found out that the hospital is closed suddenly because of the lack of doctors and that they have to drive their child an hour and a half to the nearest hospital?

We need to correct this and that is what furthering this report and supporting the motion will do.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we have already had this debate. The members of the Bloc Québécois moved a motion during an opposition day to close Roxham Road and to call on the federal government to reimburse the health care costs of certain asylum seekers because Quebec was the place that was receiving the most asylum seekers. The Conservatives did not seem overly concerned about that at the time.

I find it odd today to see this unfortunate conflation today regarding criminal migrants who take advantage of health care. It has become a—

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

I have to give the member a chance to answer the question.

The hon. member for Similkameen—South Okanagan—West Kootenay.

[Helena Konanz, Conservative, Similkameen—South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Mr. Speaker, this is a problem across the entire country. This is not focused just on one province. I know that thousands of people in my riding do not have a doctor, and we have this gateway system for health. These issues need to be addressed. As for those rejected asylum seekers and criminals who are avoiding being sent back to their country, and some of them are criminals, this should be addressed so that money is spent on Canadians.

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, as always, it is a privilege to be here today to discuss and debate a Conservative opposition day motion.

I would like to point out that today is the fourth anniversary of Russia's unjustified and illegal invasion of Ukraine. I would like to add my voice and that of my constituents in Kings—Hants, Nova Scotia, and my colleagues on this subject. Obviously, we are extremely proud of all the people of Ukraine for their efforts to defend their territory, sovereignty and freedom from Russian forces.

I believe this is important for Canadians. I believe that while most Canadians understand the situation, it is not only a matter of Russia and Ukraine. The people of Ukraine are fighting for their sovereignty and their freedom, but also for us, for international rules, for NATO, and for power in an extremely uncertain world. We are fully behind Ukraine. I am proud of all my colleagues who have spoken to this issue today.

With that in mind, I find the motion introduced by the Conservatives today very strange. It is not crazy, but it is strange, in my view. It is unbelievable, given the numerous challenges around the world. Examples include the situation in the Middle East, the situation in Ukraine, and the talks between Canada and the U.S. For example, they could have raised the issue of our Olympic athletes or made statements about them.

Today, although Ukraine is a very important topic, none of the questions raised by Conservative members during oral question period touched on that country. The Conservatives have not brought a motion on how important it is for the Government of Canada to continue supporting our allies at this time.

Today is about the desire of the Conservatives to eliminate the interim federal health program for vulnerable asylum claimants in the country. I was trying to express in French that there is a lot going on in the world. We did not hear questions today from the Conservatives, in question period, on Ukraine.

There is important context to what is going on. The hon. member for Battle River—Crowfoot once called Ukraine a faraway land, and I think all of this bleeds into the question about the seriousness of the types of questions that the Conservative Party puts before the House, in terms of what we are looking at. Again, when we think about the economy, foreign affairs, Canada-U.S. relations, the Olympics, our athletes, food security and affordability, there are a lot of places where we could be spending our time in Parliament, and this is what we have today.

It is important for Canadians to understand what exactly individuals are entitled to. We have heard a lot of debate today in the House. I want to zero in on facts. Of course, Canada has a long history of being a country that is welcoming and compassionate but at the same time principled about how support is given to individuals who may find their way to our shores and how we assess their claims.

Individuals who arrive in Canada are entitled to a process to claim asylum based on the concept that their return and that of their family back to their country of origin could create a situation that could put their lives or their health in jeopardy, or they could be politically prosecuted. There is an entire process that Canada has established. It is something Canadians should be proud of.

We are a country that has welcomed individuals from all around the world. It is part of the cultural mosaic and the fabric of this country. We have a process for it. There is a process independent of the government that assesses the claims, their quality and whether there is enough rigour. Someone simply does not get the benefit of staying in this country if their claim for asylum is not ultimately accepted. Still, the principle we have is that individuals are entitled to a process. I think that is really important when we talk about how the Conservatives have framed this opposition day motion.

The last colleague who spoke in this House talked about individuals who are criminals. I have heard the word “terrorist” brought around in the House. There is not a single member of Parliament in this House who would support the proposition that individuals who have a criminal record ought to be able to stay in the country, and that is not, in fact, what happens. However, the Conservatives have tried to narrow in on an issue that we will see a whole bunch about on social media, with no context, to, frankly, gaslight Canadians and try to create these types of issues. I do not think this is the most important thing happening in the country, but we will get into that.

What are individuals entitled to? Let us say that a member has a constituent in their riding, someone who has arrived in Canada from a country and decided to claim asylum. There is an entitled process where they have an ability to have their case heard. Individuals who register for asylum are, in many cases, vulnerable individuals. I will get to the point that the Conservatives are trying to raise, which is about the idea of illegitimate claims. However, we have to, and ought to, as Canadians, think about individuals who are vulnerable, and we should have a system that allows them due process.

Once an individual registers for asylum, what happens in this country is that they are entitled to have a work permit and basic medical benefits. There are what are called supplementary benefits, and the government has actually moved to introduce copay contributions. Individuals going through this process have basic medical care. I have heard the idea that they are somehow jumping the line. They are not jumping the line. They have an ability to go, like any one of us as Canadians, to see family physicians. When they see a doctor for whatever ailment they may have while they are going through that process, the cost is recovered by the Government of Canada. That is something the Government of Canada pays to the medical physician in question. That is what individuals are entitled to.

The Conservatives are making big hay around rejected applicants. There is an ability for someone, once they have their initial hearing before the Immigration Review Board, the IRB, if they are ultimately not successful, to have one more recourse, which is to apply for an additional process to argue, basically, an appeal to the initial ruling. The government's policy for quite a long-standing period of time has been that those benefits would continue to flow for individuals, so long as they are still within their entitlement of that process. Now, people could reasonably make different assertions. We have heard a lot from the opposition benches that that is unjust, that the cost overall should not be necessarily borne by the system, but we have not heard a whole lot of statistics backing up what actual percentage of the program is tied to individuals who may be asserting one final ability within their entitlement, their due process, and having access to those benefits.

We have put before the floor of the House of Commons changes to this program. We certainly would concur that if there is any concern around abuse of programs, we want to make sure there is no abuse. Of course, people are entitled to a process. I would point my colleagues on the Conservative benches to provisions in Bill C-2 and Bill C-12, where the government is already taking action on this front to ensure that if there is any undue influence, or this idea that individuals are trying to use the asylum system improperly, we have the safeguards to be able to deal with that situation.

The Prime Minister today in question period was very clear that if we look at the number of asylum claims in this country, the amount of temporary foreign workers and the amount of international students, all of those numbers have gone down. Any suggestion that the immigration system in this country is “out of control” or that there is not due process, I think, again, is trying to create a narrative that is not helpful. It is trying to gin people up at home, and I do not think there is validity to what has been said here today in the House of Commons. I think that is important.

Let us think about the entire augment of every vulnerable individual who arrives on Canadian shores, where we have a process. By the way, if, when they go through that process, they are determined to have not met the threshold, both in the IRB and then afterward in the appeal, they are not entitled. When an individual is truly rejected, i.e., they have no ability for any additional recourse from an administrative process, they are not entitled to additional benefits. The Conservatives need to come clean with that message, because they are talking about rejection halfway through the administrative process. If they want to suggest there should not be an administrative process where one can appeal one additional time from the initial ruling, then they should just come out and say that.

Already, in Canada, any individual who is rejected on their asylum claim is not entitled to this benefit, but we do not hear that from the opposition. We are not going to see that on the 45-second clip that is going to be put out there to say how terrible this is and that the government is trying to deceive people. This is the kind of stuff that is corrosive in our society.

The government has already taken measures to introduce copay. That is important. It is not a problem for the Conservatives to raise this in Parliament, but I think it is outrageous that they are using an opposition day motion to do so. This work can be done at committees. At the end of the day, we are talking about 0.0004% of the entire expenditure of the Government of Canada.

Part of the opposition day motion reads, “Canadians that have paid into the healthcare system their whole lives are unable to get the healthcare they deserve in part because resources are going to false asylum claimants”. The Conservatives have not made out that we are talking about $211 million four years ago; that number has gone up. The government has taken adjustment measures within its legislative authorities. We are talking about 0.004%.

If the Conservatives have a problem with access to health care in this country, why did they not support the government when it put 40 billion dollars' worth of new health care spending over a 10-year period? They voted against it. That is a bit more damning for Canadians getting health care than 0.004%, which includes legitimate asylum claimants. The Conservatives suggest to us that they do have a compassionate heart for these vulnerable Canadians and that we should continue to support these individuals.

We are talking about an even more minute number, and this is what the Conservatives choose to bring before the House of Commons. How about dental care? There are almost 9,000 constituents in Kings—Hants who received the federal dental care program. Conservatives voted against it. I find the premise a bit rich that, as we try to work through the challenges of health care and a larger baby boomer demographic and as provinces are making choices on how they are going to allocate, this is the type of policy being brought forward.

We heard some responses from the ministers in question period about the idea of gaslighting and the dog whistle stuff. I have belief in my hon. colleagues that there are good members across the way, but this is playing with fire a little. The facetious part is when I hear reference to “rejected asylum claimants”. They should say that “asylum claimants who have appealed within their internal process” should not be entitled. They should just come out and say that, because these individuals are not yet fully rejected. There are not terrorists getting asylum benefits in this country. There are not criminals going through this process who are getting these benefits.

Those are the monikers and the names that are used to gin people up at home, because any rightful Canadian would say of course that is BS, but that is not what is happening. This is the kind of stuff that frustrates Canadians, and rightfully so. By the way, I stand here as a parliamentarian of six-plus years. There is plenty to criticize of any government that sits on this side in a Westminster system. This government is not perfect. I am proud of the work of our Prime Minister and our government, but I am sure there are ample areas where the Conservatives could stand up and talk about issues that perhaps deserve attention. This is not about valid public policy. This is about trying to gin people up at home in a political context, with zero context about what is and what is not true. That is where I see it.

I am just going to take a quick tangent that is connected to this. There was a group of farmers in my office today, and we were talking about food security and support for farmers. I asked about things such as the clean fuel standard. I said that instead of real, substantive policy, what we get from the Conservative Party is the idea of getting rid of the clean fuel standard, which is driving biofuel policy, which is benefiting rural western Canadian farmers, particularly in the canola sector. They are talking about eliminating Canada's most effective greenhouse gas emissions reduction program to get a negligible benefit on the farm.

That is the quality, or lack thereof in my personal view, of the policy direction we are getting from the Conservative Party of Canada. I want to see better. I will take it, because it is going to continue to provide the Liberal Party and the government an ability to show a real contrast in terms of our differences. This is not thoughtful public policy, in my respectful view.

The government is already taking measures to address any of the concerns, as I have mentioned, in Bill C-2 and Bill C-12. We are not going to stand idly by if there are individuals arriving in Canada who are trying to use the asylum system, which has been compassionate in Canadian history, and if these are not legitimate claims. We have a way to deal with that. We have a way to try to expedite the work around asylum claims. There has been the hiring of individuals at the IRB to try to speed up these processes and ensure that we are legitimizing the vulnerable individuals who are arriving and seeking refuge in Canada to be able to contribute to our communities as part of our social fabric. At the same time, we are making sure that we have a pathway for individuals to leave the country if their claim is not met.

Conservatives stand up and speak about rejected asylum claimants, but that already happens. Once they go through the process and they have no other recourse, they do not get the benefit. How many more times do we have to say it? Why do the Conservatives not just say, “We do not want individuals to have the benefit when they are halfway through the process”?

They might as well just say they do not want an appeal court for individuals who might be convicted. This is the same thing. We have a process in this country through our institutions. It is fair game if they would like to suggest that individuals have only one shot at IRB; that is fine, but let us actually deal with that. They should just say it. Those are important points. That is what I find deeply frustrating about this.

Why has the budget overall gone from about $200 million to $800 million in the last four years? I will go back to where I started this speech. Look at what is going on in the world. We have a war in eastern Europe. Individuals have fled Ukraine and have sought refuge here. We have war in Sudan. We certainly have war in the Middle East. We have geopolitical conflicts all over the world, so I wonder if we could ask ourselves why there might be a rise in asylum claims when we look at Canada, a country of stability, a country of rule of law, and a country of institutions where people say, “That is a place where I would like to take my family.”

Now, people are not entitled to that process illegitimately. Individuals are not just allowed to come to Canada and stay. We have rules, order and process. If the Conservatives would like to suggest that the process is, in their mind, too fair or too long, then they should just come out and say it, but when they come out and say that rejected asylum claimants should not get the benefit, at the end of the day that is not actually the case. Once an individual, a vulnerable individual who arrives, is fully rejected through the process by which they are entitled to seek and to make their claim, any cases regarding individuals who do not have validity are being challenged.

These are the things on which we just have to have better debate on the floor of the House of Commons. I know it is easy for me to say that, but I would invite all members to see that we have to be more thoughtful than this.

Again, we are choosing to spend an entire day on the floor House of Commons to gin people up about individuals who come to Canada on the premise that they are vulnerable individuals coming from war-torn countries and challenging political situations where they cannot go home. We have a program of services that Canadians would be proud of. Individuals are not jumping the line. They do not get access to medical services above and beyond a Canadian. If and when they are able to access the medical services in question, the Government of Canada helps contribute to the cost as part of our international obligations and as part of our humanitarian programs.

We have taken measures in Bill C-2 and Bill C-12 to make sure that any abuse of that program is reined in. We have introduced copays. As far as this goes, the government is already taking any actions that reasonably could have been seen from the opposition benches. I just wish we could have a little more serious debate. There is plenty of room for questions, so I look forward to the conversation from my colleagues.

[Dave Epp, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Leamington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have a couple of questions.

Early in his speech, the member rightly referenced, right from our motion, that the interim program cost $211 million, and he said early on that it has gone up a bit. Now, he did come back to the numbers. It is now $896 million. Would he define “up a bit” as quadrupling in four years?

The second question is regarding “interim”. Could the member define interim? Is this program going away, or does interim refer to just the period during which people are qualifying? What do they mean by interim here?

Last, the member said they are going to address the cost by copay. As part of our motion, we are projecting that the cost will go to $1.5 billion by 2029-30. Does he agree with that assessment, and will—

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister.

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I respect my hon. colleague on the other side. I am going to tackle “interim”. Interim is the interim process while someone is going through the asylum process. Once a person registers and seeks an asylum claim, they are entitled to the benefit. The moment they have exhausted any of the administrative processes they are entitled to, the benefit goes away. It is that interim period until there is a determination by the authorities in this country. That is what we are referencing. It has gone from $211 million to $896 million. We take issue with the way in which the Parliamentary Budget Officer has framed up the forward-looking numbers, because of the provisions in Bill C-2 and Bill C-12. We are making adjustments.

When the hon. member talks about copay, we have introduced the requirement for individuals to contribute toward supplementary benefits under this program.

The last thing that I am going to say is important. We have 10 minutes. We are talking about $800 million out of $486 billion, and we are talking about legitimate—

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

We have to continue with questions and comments.

The hon. member for Montcalm.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, beyond how each side presents its arguments, there are uncomfortable questions arising from this debate.

Does my colleague not find it embarrassing that it takes 40 months to process a claim and get a response? Does he not find it embarrassing that, in order to speed up these claims and responses, 25,000 asylum seekers per year have been exempted from the security process? Does he not find it embarrassing that his government is still delaying the payment of $700 million owed to Quebec?

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Mr. Speaker, that is precisely why the government introduced changes to the general process for asylum seekers in Bill C-2 and Bill C-12. We have a system in place to ensure that, in general, the process takes less than 40 months.

Most asylum seekers, 80%, are accepted at the end of the process. We have a process. We want to create a faster process for determining status. That is precisely the reason for Bills C-2 and C-12.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I find the narrative that the Conservatives have been using today, and in this discussion generally speaking, extremely alarming, because what they are basically saying to Canadians is that their health care system is not working because of refugees. They are using dog whistle politics to attack a subgroup of our population intentionally because they have, in my opinion, the same motive as we are seeing in neighbouring countries of ours right now with the way their administration is approaching this.

I am wondering if the member can provide some insight into what he thinks the Conservatives' motive is behind this. Is it just a coincidence that there happens to be a big development, or there has been over the last number of months, to the south with respect to immigration?

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Mr. Speaker, what I tried to express during my remarks is that I have no problem with the Conservatives coming forward and saying, for example, that they would like to have a changed process. I have no problem with the Conservative Party coming forward and talking about how we can make sure that we have programs in place to support individuals and how, if there are additional challenges in that process, individuals should not be entitled, but that is not what we were talking about today.

The Conservative Party continues to use the claim that a rejected asylum claimant is the reason Canadians, in some cases, may struggle to get access to health care. It is utter BS. I do not agree with that at all.

I have explained to the hon. colleagues across the way that this is 0.004% of the entire budget of the Government of Canada, and we are talking about legitimate claims that are taking place. When they say that it is rejected asylum claimants, but no rejected asylum claimants in this country are getting benefits, that is dog whistle politics in my mind.

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

Before I continue with questions and comments, I want to remind the parliamentary secretary that just because he uses an acronym instead of the full word, it is basically what I heard the chief government whip whisper to him, that he is still doing indirectly what he cannot do directly.

The particular word you used is not a parliamentary word.

I would just offer the member the opportunity to retract the statement.

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Mr. Speaker, in rural Hants County, sometimes we get a little colloquial and casual. I certainly withdraw it.