Madam Speaker, first I want to mention that I will be sharing my time with my colleague, the member for Beauharnois—Salaberry—Soulanges—Huntingdon. Her riding may get a new name soon that will probably be easier to pronounce.
As the Bloc Québécois critic for immigration, citizenship and refugees, I would like to lay out our party's position on the official opposition's motion on health care for asylum claimants that we are debating today.
The Bloc Québécois is against this motion for the following reasons. First, it omits important information regarding the reasons that explain the increase in health care costs for asylum claimants. Second, the motion makes a risky and counterproductive link between the health care costs incurred by asylum claimants and the lack of federal funding for the provinces' health care systems. Third, the motion proposes measures that may be difficult to implement, in addition to increasing the burden on the provinces, such as restricting reimbursed care for asylum claimants to emergency life-saving health care only.
I still want to emphasize that we agree with the motion's observation regarding the inequity between asylum claimants and Quebec citizens with respect to coverage for certain services such as vision care and dental care. Allow me to explain our reasons in a bit more detail.
First, the Conservative motion states that the cost of the interim federal health program has more than quadrupled in recent years, rising from $211 million to $896 million, which is accurate. However, I think it is important to explain what caused the increase in costs. In his February 12 report, the Parliamentary Budget Officer wrote that the cost of the program grew as both the number of beneficiaries and the cost per beneficiary increased significantly. He went on to say, “In recent years, the number of beneficiaries has increased considerably. The rising volume of asylum claims, along with the longer duration of eligibility caused by extended determination times, has been an important growth driver in recent years.”
What the Parliamentary Budget Officer has said is that the costs are going up because of increasing demand and because the eligibility period for asylum seekers is getting longer. Global geopolitical events are partially responsible for the increase in asylum claims, and as a result, it is perfectly normal for us to step up to meet our international obligations. To give members an idea of the numbers, between 2019 and 2024, Canada's annual asylum claims rose from 64,000 to a record 173,000, according to data from Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada. There were 60,000 asylum claimants living in Quebec in 2021, and that number rose to 180,000 in 2025. This is a three-fold increase in the number of asylum claimants across the province. Obviously, these people come here, make an asylum claim and have access to health care, so it is understandable how this would drive up costs. More people are eligible for the program, after all. On average, Quebec has received approximately 40% of asylum claimants, even though the province represents slightly under 22% of the Canadian population.
The increased costs stemming from the fact that the eligibility period is longer is driven by the fact that the federal government is slow to process asylum claims. This is an important factor because it points to a solution, which is that the federal government should process claims more effectively. The government must process asylum claims faster, while maintaining the quality of the process. As my colleague said a few minutes ago, it is clear that when the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada is asked to go faster, the instinct seems to be to botch the job, as we say back home, and to remove security checks.
Perhaps the members of the Bloc Québécois are somewhat idealistic, but I do not think it is naive to hope that the federal government, which is part of the G7, can work efficiently and quickly without compromising security checks. Asylum claim processing times are catastrophic. The number of asylum claimants has gone up. What does a responsible government entity do when it sees that it has a high volume of claims? It is clear that the instinct has been to cut back on security checks, but the rational reaction would be to increase resources to process claims faster. However, the Liberal government has not done that, and the result is that processing backlogs have increased significantly.
In Quebec, 40 months can go by between the time someone files an asylum claim and when they receive the final decision. The person has access to health care for that 40-month period. Of course this is going to drive up costs.
It does not have to be that way; it is possible to be efficient. There are efficient countries in the world. France and Germany have also dealt with waves of migration. France is able to process claims within six months and Germany within just over eight months. Could Canada learn from these best practices? Could it process asylum claims quickly? I certainly hope so. If there is a structural reason as to why Canada is always less efficient, I would ask the members opposite to explain it to us.
This gives me an opportunity to highlight the Bloc's traditional demands with regard to asylum seekers. As I have already mentioned, Quebec bears a burden that is much greater than its proportional weight in the Canadian federation when it comes to taking in asylum seekers. Quebec is very welcoming, but we believe that the burden that comes with welcoming asylum seekers could be better distributed among the provinces, even though, as I said, we welcome newcomers with open arms.
That could help Quebec provide public services to asylum seekers. We have also made demands regarding the additional costs stemming from the 2024 wave of immigration. We would like the federal government to repay Quebec for the costs it incurred, which amount to $700 million.
To wrap up this point, I would like to refer to what the Parliamentary Budget Officer said, because on its face, the motion paints a doomsday scenario. It is true that the cost of the federal health program has quadrupled, but the Parliamentary Budget Officer says he expects the increase to be much smaller over the next few years.
As I said earlier, I think that the Conservative Party's claim that Canadians are unable to get health care because resources are going to rejected asylum claimants is dangerous and counterproductive. It is dangerous because ordinarily, a G7 country should be able to take on the cost of providing health care to asylum seekers while still allocating adequate funding for provincial health care systems. It is counterproductive because this kind of false inference sows division and resentment, when our goal should be to try to reconcile divergent interests in our society.
People in Quebec and in the other provinces who are waiting for health care do deserve better. The federal government could address that by increasing health transfers to the provinces. The latest budget has the federal government slashing health transfers to the provinces. What with inflation and population aging, it is clear that the federal funding will not keep up with system costs. To take action on this, I urge the Conservative Party to support our demand for a more substantial increase in federal health transfers.
In closing, the motion contains measures that are likely to be impractical and that will add to the burden on the provinces. One example is restricting benefits received by asylum seekers to emergency life-saving health care only. My time is almost up, but I would like to give two reasons for opposing that measure.
First, under the Geneva Convention, refugees lawfully staying in the territory are entitled to the same treatment with respect to public relief and assistance as is accorded to nationals. As such, they are entitled to public assistance. The federal government tried to take away services for asylum seekers in 2012, but the Federal Court ruled that this was contrary to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms when it comes to Canadians' right to be protected from cruel and unusual treatment or punishment and their right to equality. There is a legal issue at play, so that could not happen.
Second, let us imagine for a moment an asylum seeker who goes to a hospital seeking care for a broken arm. Let us apply the Conservative motion. Is a broken arm life-threatening? I do not think so. A person can survive with a broken arm. What happens then? Health care workers will treat the person, of course, but the federal program will not cover the cost. Who will pay the bill? The provinces. If this motion goes through, the cost will be transferred to the provinces. We are against that.