Debates of Feb. 24th, 2026

Opposition Motion—Interim Federal Health Program

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

The hon. member for Cariboo—Prince George is rising on a point of order.

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

Madam Speaker, our hon. colleague knows that he is to address his comments not to the gallery but through the Speaker. He continues to answer questions, and it goes back and forth. I am just saying that he should get back on track and direct his comments through the Speaker, not directly to the gallery.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

Yes, I would remind the hon. parliamentary secretary to speak through the Chair.

[Yasir Naqvi, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the appropriate point of order from my colleague.

Let us look at this program. In the fiscal year 2024-25, the eligible population in Canada for the program was about 549,324 people, as I mentioned, of whom 440,537 were asylum claimants, protected persons and victims of human trafficking and family violence. We can imagine those individuals, depending on which part of the world they come from, as asylum claimants, protected persons and victims of human trafficking and family violence. Would members not agree that they would require some important health care services, when it comes to not only primary health care but the kinds of counselling and physiotherapy they would need in order to rebuild? For those who are listening to this debate, that is what the money is going toward, trying to help those particular individuals.

If I look at, for example, the victims of human trafficking and family violence, the costs went from $91.3 million to $372 million over that one period. Of that $1 billion the Conservatives are speaking of, $327 million went toward victims of human trafficking and family violence. I for one would argue that the money was well spent. The kind of care needed for those individuals to rebuild their lives is really important. However, what we have heard in the debate is that somehow the entire $1 billion has been wasted and spent on “bogus refugees” or “fake refugees”. Those are not my words but the words of the leader of the official opposition. That is not the case. The numbers do not bear that out.

[An hon. member]

Your numbers are fake.

[Yasir Naqvi, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, again, we just heard my colleague say that my numbers are fake. We do not even have to name Trump anymore to say that is the kind of language he uses. The member can do better. This is what I am saying. How lazy is his argument if this is what he has to go to?

Let us focus on the issue at hand. The reason the cost of this program has gone up is that, as we all know, and we have debated it quite sufficiently in the House over the last couple of years, the number of immigrants coming to Canada has gone up. The number of refugees seeking asylum has gone up as well. In fact, that number is now starting to come down. However, if the number of people coming in increases, of course the services they need will go up as well. That is why the cost has gone up.

Has the government taken appropriate steps to bring the number down? Absolutely. In fact, we have seen it when it comes to the level plans, the number of temporary foreign workers, and in our arrangement with the United States on how we manage our borders. All of these things have been done, and we have seen results as a product of that. Therefore, of course, the cost of the program will come down as well.

The government is also looking at a copayment model. As many would know, that is part of the budget process that IRCC is working through to ensure that the costs could be managed. That is the thoughtful debate we should be working through in the House, not just trying to say that the entire program is going to fake or bogus refugees. Again, those are not my words but those of the opposition. Let us come up with thoughtful, sophisticated things.

In my last two minutes or so, I would again say to the House that we can do better. We can do better in our debate. We can do better in how we speak to all Canadians, whether they are citizens or not. We should never talk about us versus them. Guess what; I was one of them too at one time. How long will it be before this debate comes down to me or my children becoming “them” again? There is no us and them. We are all in this together.

We build this country together, as everyone before us has done. We will continue to do so. I know the hon. members across the aisle believe that as well. I want them to stand up to their leadership and say no to this kind of debate, absolutely no. This is not what Canadians are asking for. If Conservatives think this is how they are going to get popular again and maybe form government, they are dreaming in la-la land. They are. They will keep their base. Good for them. Their base will never vote for us anyways.

Let us work together. Let us build this country together. I look forward to working with all the members of the House to do that.

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

Madam Speaker, there is a lot to unpack there. We can feel the passion from our colleague across the way. I do not think anyone is dreaming in la-la land, as our colleague across the way projected this morning.

Let us look at what the motion of the text says. It merely states that the cost of the interim federal health program has more than quadrupled, from $211 million to $896 million, in the last four years. It is projected to rise to $1.5 billion. We currently have non-Canadians who are receiving treatment when Canadians who have paid into it all their lives are not receiving it.

In my province, there are wait times up to 18 months. As I mentioned earlier on, we have emergency room closures. We have pregnant women who are having to travel up to four to eight hours to see specialists because we do not have doctors who are available for them in rural, remote communities. Our health care system is broken. I think we can all agree on that. What we are asking is that the House call on the government to review federal health benefits provided to asylum claimants in order to find savings for taxpayers. The Liberals like to bring up the guy to the south whenever they want to strike fear into and divide Canadians. All we are saying through this motion is that a calmer, measured approach needs to be taken to fix our health care system, and our motion clearly states that.

[Yasir Naqvi, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I wish the member opposite would have written this motion or been the spokesperson for this, but I am sorry, that is not the language his leader has been using. We do not have to go too far to see it. We can just go on X or Instagram and look at it right now. I agree with the member that the debate around the state of our health care system is an extremely important debate, but how is this $1 billion all of a sudden going to open all the hospitals that are being closed, for example, or help the people who do not have doctors? In fact, I will say, if these people who live in our communities, who are our neighbours, do not get health care, we can guess where they are going to end up. They are going to end up in emergency rooms. That is going to cost us more and cause more concerns and pains to our communities.

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Madam Speaker, I listened to my colleague's very impassioned speech and I get the sense that there is a topic he failed to cover. In fact, my colleague from Gaspésie—Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Listuguj, the Bloc Québécois immigration critic, raised this point yesterday during question period. The government reportedly accepted thousands of asylum claims without conducting any checks or holding any in-person interviews.

Does my colleague think that is acceptable? In these circumstances, does he not think that the government needs to make some serious changes to the way it processes asylum claims?

[Yasir Naqvi, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question, which is a fair one.

Of course, we need to make sure our asylum claimant system works well. Nobody is debating or denying the fact that there are backlogs, that it could be managed better. I am not suggesting that there be no evaluation of this program or the way we review asylum claims, and the speed at which we do so, from an administrative and procedural perspective. I appreciate that tone of debate but not the kind we have seen from the Conservatives on this thus far.

[Arielle Kayabaga, Liberal, London West, ON]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the framing of my colleague's answer, and his pushing back on the premise and the framing of the Leader of the Opposition around this. His framing is actually inflammatory and is a menace to our social cohesion.

Could the member tell me what his thoughts were when he heard the Leader of the Opposition framing refugees, people who are fleeing war and people who are fleeing climate disasters, as criminals? I know that my hon. colleague is also someone who came from a war-torn country to this country seeking a better life. Many colleagues in this House are in that situation. What does that do to our society?

As well, could the member talk about the future of the Conservative Party if it continues to divide Canadians and break our social cohesion?

[Yasir Naqvi, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I will leave the future of the Conservative Party in the hands of the voters.

I think what we are seeing from some of the Conservative members is that they do not disagree with the position of our party and are actually choosing a different direction. I am sure it is not easy for anybody to leave their political party and join another one. Imagine the limits they are being pushed to by the level of discourse that we are seeing in the House for them to make this kind of decision.

The member asked me what my first reaction was, and it is that there is not even a pretense of a dog whistle anymore. They are saying the things that we thought the Conservatives used to believe in, about us versus them, about immigrants versus non-immigrants and about refugees versus non-refugees, but they are now just saying it out loud. It is a shameful day for this country.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Madam Speaker, with respect to the comments the parliamentary secretary made earlier, he is absolutely correct that the Conservative approach is divisive and penalizes the people who are most vulnerable in our community.

To the point on interim federal health policy, the Liberal government brought forward a copayment system in the budget. For those who are suffering mental health challenges with trauma, people who have escaped persecution, violence, gender-based violence and so on, access to mental health and access to medication would be critical. A $4 fee could be prohibitive for them. A 30% increase in copayment fees could be prohibitive for them.

Would the member agree that the government should not go down that track because it is edging right into the trap that the Conservatives are setting?

[Yasir Naqvi, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, just yesterday I had a very thoughtful and detailed meeting with a doctor who is part of the Canadian Refugee Health Network, the executive director of Somerset West Community Health Centre, which is located in my riding, to have this exact conversation and to talk about the changes that are being proposed around copayment on some of these supplemental benefits. We went through the kind of impact that could have.

My commitment to them is that I look forward to sharing their findings with the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship and having a conversation to see if there is a better way to look at the cost aspect of this program, but also, at the same time, to ensure that good health care is being delivered for these individuals.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Madam Speaker, our motion today is about people whose asylum claims have been rejected.

I think the member would have to acknowledge that the government recognizes that this is a problem, because it has put the copay mechanism in place. We are talking specifically about those who have had their request rejected.

Would the member not acknowledge that the government's copay plan acknowledges that this is indeed a problem?

[Yasir Naqvi, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, first of all, if that is the focus of the argument, it is a very small number of people, so to then argue that somehow the entire $1 billion is being spent on people whose asylum claims may have been refused is an erroneous argument. Again, the way that argument is being presented is divisive.

The other thing I will say is that if people's asylum claims have been denied, they are probably going through the appeal process. There are constitutional, legal obligations that we have to follow. We cannot just pretend that the law does not apply because somebody is not a Canadian or a permanent resident.

There are many factors in play to make sure people are getting the care they need while they are working through the process.

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

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to hear the parliamentary secretary say he will stand up and call out whenever refugees are made scapegoats.

Why did he not stand up and call out Bill C-12? Right now, the senators are trying, with sober second thought, to take out the anti-refugee components of that bill.

[Yasir Naqvi, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I do not think the member is questioning my perspective when it comes to standing up for refugees. I do that kind of work in this chamber and outside this chamber all the time.

[Alexis Deschênes, Bloc, Gaspésie—Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Listuguj, QC]

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.

[Carlos Leitão, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry]

Madam Speaker, I have to say that, in general, I agree with most of what my colleague said.

I would just like him to get into a little more detail. He said that the Conservative motion is treading on dangerous ground by conflating a lot of things, which can lead to confusion. What is my colleague referring to, specifically?

[Alexis Deschênes, Bloc, Gaspésie—Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Listuguj, QC]

Madam Speaker, my point is that legitimate grievances can exist in a society. A person waiting for a hip replacement in Quebec has a right to be angry about delays. What we need to do is find a solution to that problem, not look for someone to blame. That is what I am worried about.

I believe we certainly have the means to take proper care of asylum seekers. However, the federal government also needs to invest more in health care because, otherwise, there will be resentment. The Conservative Party has a role to play, but so does the federal government, and it should increase federal funding for health care.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent—Akiawenhrahk, QC]

Madam Speaker, my colleague's speech was, as always, very interesting and well researched.

The issues are quite obvious for Quebec. It is clear that 40% of asylum seekers have come to Quebec, even though we represent only 22% of the population. Quebec is overburdened. In addition, in Quebec it can take 40 months before a case is processed, as my colleague so aptly mentioned. However, elsewhere, like in Germany or France, they do a much better job of it.

My colleague talked about the role of the federal government. Over the past 10 years, how has the Liberal policy led us to the situation we are facing now, where we are stuck with the problem, and why is it that Quebeckers are most directly affected by this policy? I must add that we consider this policy to show a complete lack of respect for immigrants.

[Alexis Deschênes, Bloc, Gaspésie—Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Listuguj, QC]

Madam Speaker, my colleague's question is an excellent one, and there are two parts to the answer.

As we have seen, the increase in costs is due to the increase in refugee claims. That is not the federal government's fault. However, the Liberal government needs to answer for failing to add resources to process refugee claims given the growing demand from asylum seekers. That is the federal government's fault.

More than that, pressuring the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada to process claims faster without giving it the necessary resources resulted in what we saw yesterday. The government is doing away with security screening. We can talk about that in the coming days.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Madam Speaker, the member is absolutely correct, in that part of the issue around escalating the cost of the system is the Liberal government's inadequacy in providing the necessary resources to get the applications processed. In the case of the IRB, for example, it needs the actual resources and the capacity to be able to process the applications so applicants are not just jammed up in the system. Equally important would be for Quebec and the other provinces to receive the additional funding that is required in the delivery of health care. That is absolutely paramount.

My question to my colleague is this: Would he also join the NDP to collectively demand that the Liberal government do what is right and honour our international obligations to refugees, and also support provinces and territories, including Quebec, in getting the necessary resources to do the work that is required?

[Alexis Deschênes, Bloc, Gaspésie—Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Listuguj, QC]

Madam Speaker, the Bloc Québécois has already been calling on the federal government for quite some time now to reimburse Quebec for its costs, given the influx of migrants at Roxham Road. I think we agree on that point, since we are both calling on the federal government to reimburse the costs.

I completely agree with my colleague that we need to apply pressure and that the federal government needs to live up to its obligations. This is all very sensitive, because there may be all sorts of consequences if the government does not properly process asylum claims within a respectful time frame.

On the one hand, there is currently a risk of criminal gangs from certain countries slipping in. On the other hand, there are also people who are waiting far too long when they should be receiving status. The government really needs to do a better job of delivering services.