Debates of Feb. 24th, 2026

Opposition Motion—Interim Federal Health Program

[Shuv Majumdar, Conservative, Calgary Heritage, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague's question is well thought out and considered. The problem is not necessarily the law. The problem is that it is not being implemented. People are not being kicked out properly. Judges are acting in the interest of process over justice. That requires remedial effort right away.

[Warren Steinley, Conservative, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, we know we are having a good day on the opposition side when the Liberal benches are yelling and screaming and bringing out all the tricks in the book in terms of how to discredit what we are trying to say. What we have said, time and time again, is that refugees who have had their claims denied or who have failed should not get the same health care as seniors across our country or people who have paid taxes their whole lives across our country, which is a fair assessment to make.

I want to give my colleague a couple of minutes to talk about some of those failed claimants. We talked about a couple of them. In B.C., 15 people were charged with extortion and 14 put forward asylum claims so that they would get health care benefits that our seniors across the country do not get. Does he think that is fair to all Canadians?

[Shuv Majumdar, Conservative, Calgary Heritage, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague is a hard-working person for the great people he represents. He does great work in the House every single day.

No, it is not. In fact, the inequality of services being provided to people who have paid into the system for a lifetime, our seniors, is not matched by the deluxe care that fake refugee claimants are being provided in the country. It is absolutely an unjust system that is taking advantage of those who have paid into it and preferencing those who are here to exploit it or, worse, to commit acts of extortion or terrorism or other federal crimes.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives could have accomplished the same thing and would not have even had to talk about health care and set up this dichotomy of us versus them, if they had just made their motion say to get rid of the appeal process. That effectively would have accomplished the same thing. By getting rid of the appeal process, once a claimant is rejected, it is over. Once a claimant goes through the appeal process, they are required to leave the country.

Why did Conservatives have to set up this whole thing pitting seniors against other people and this and that about health care? Why not just say to get rid of the appeal process?

[Shuv Majumdar, Conservative, Calgary Heritage, AB]

Mr. Speaker, as an hon. member of the government, he could get rid of the appeal process today if he chose to. I do not understand why he did not. Conservatives have had to sit here and watch the Liberal government divide Canadians over a decade of terrible immigration policy and terrible justice policy, terrible policies that have resulted in chaos across the streets of Canada.

Conservatives have stepped up today with a motion to fix a difficult problem that Liberals created because Liberals refuse to take the steps that they must. What they should do is take our advice in earnest and implement it in full. Our motion would help Canada perform better despite the egregious pains that the Liberal government has caused Canada for well over a decade.

[Abdelhaq Sari, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Mr. Speaker, before I begin, I would like to say that I will be sharing my time with the member for Kingston and the Islands.

Over the past few years, we have all seen the importance of good public governance. Canadians expect their government to manage public funds responsibly, but never at the expense of our values. Canadians' values are reflected in the values of our government. These are our core values, our humanity and our sense of justice. This is precisely the balance we seek to maintain in managing the interim federal health program.

Generally speaking, finding balance is the most difficult aspect of governing. Governments must avoid going to one extreme or the other. Sometimes, finding a balance is extremely complex and difficult. Despite this, our government is ready to take on this challenge and is ready to seek this balance and implement it.

This program exists for one very simple reason: to ensure that those who are most vulnerable, including asylum seekers, have access to basic health care during a transitional period, and I emphasize the word “transitional”, until they become eligible for provincial and territorial health insurance. Let us also be clear: This program must be managed rigorously. It must be managed transparently and, most of all, sustainably.

Certain figures are being used today to stoke fear and concern, particularly with regard to the increase in the program costs. This makes it important to go over the facts once again.

The increase in costs is not due to an expansion of benefits. This really needs to be stated so that Canadians listening today clearly understand the cause and do not draw simplistic correlations such as the one that was just heard. The increase is not the result of a change in the program's purpose, either. That is not the reason.

This increase in costs is due mainly to a significant increase in the number of refugee claims in recent years and to longer processing times for these claims. In practical terms, this means that some people stay in the system longer and therefore continue to be covered temporarily by the federal program before being transferred to provincial and territorial plans.

In response to these pressures, our government has not stood idly by. As I said earlier, our government has worked very hard to maintain equilibrium within this program. We have taken targeted measures, responsible measures and, above all, concrete measures.

First, we introduced a copayment model for certain supplemental benefits as of 2025. Recipients now contribute a portion of the cost of drugs, the cost of dental care, the cost of vision care and especially the cost of counselling services and assistive devices. Basic care such as medical consultations, hospitalization and tests remain fully covered. This change makes the IFHP more consistent with the experience of many Canadians who also have to contribute to their supplemental plan.

Second, we suspended certain updates to the IFHP that would have resulted in an automatic spending increase, while maintaining coverage comparable to that offered by the provinces and territories to people on welfare.

Third, we introduced and advanced legislative reforms, including Bill C‑12, to reduce abuse, improve processing times and reduce the length of time people rely on temporary federal support.

I would like to digress for a moment. When we speak of temporary situations, we are not talking about people who take advantage of the system, on the contrary. No one on the path to immigration wants to remain in a temporary situation, to remain in uncertainty or to abuse our program. On the contrary, these people want a reply so that they can become part of society, enter the workforce, and integrate into Canadian society with their family. This is very important, because sometimes in our speeches we draw parallels that can create false perceptions or misunderstandings.

Fewer delays mean lower costs. Fewer delays mean a much fairer system for everyone.

Fourth, we ended the use of federally funded hotel accommodations for asylum seekers, and we refocused our efforts on more permanent, sustainable and community-based solutions. These decisions lower costs and promote more stable integration pathways, as I said earlier.

It is also important to remember a fundamental principle: Cutting health care does not make health care needs disappear. On the contrary, delaying essential care until entering into a provincial plan would only shift costs to the provinces and territories and would often only increase them, since health problems do not improve. Instead, they become worse and more expensive to treat. Our government's approach aims to prevent these situations, protect public health and ensure an orderly transition to the provincial and territorial systems.

Furthermore, the program is rigorously monitored. Claims are analyzed, audited and administered through a structured network of health care providers, with clear mechanisms to ensure the integrity of expenditures and the proper use of public funds. We also continue to assess benefits to avoid duplication and maintain fairness across governments.

It should also be said that some financial projections have not yet included the savings generated by the new quotas or the impact of the ongoing legislative reforms. These measures will have a direct impact on how long the program is used and on overall costs. In fact, we can already see some results: In 2025, the number of asylum claims dropped by about one-third from the previous year. This shows that the government's measures are working and are helping to reduce pressure on the system.

Canadians want a well-managed, compassionate and credible immigration system. They want us to protect the vulnerable, address abuse and ensure that every taxpayer dollar is used wisely. That is exactly what our government is doing. We are aligning benefits with provincial plans, introducing cost-sharing mechanisms, strengthening oversight and transparency, reforming the system to improve efficiency, and continuously monitoring, assessing and adjusting the program to ensure its long-term viability.

The interim federal health program is not a privilege. It is a temporary safety net, a public health tool and a transition mechanism. It is a reflection of our values. As we proceed with the reforms, including those in Bill C‑12, we will continue to reduce financial pressures, improve efficiency and ensure that this program remains responsible, fair and sustainable. That is why I encourage the House to support these reforms and continue building a system that is rigorous, compassionate and true to Canadian values.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if my colleague could provide his thoughts on one of the prevailing discussions that have taken place here today, which is that the official opposition, the leader of the Conservative Party in particular, has made the decision to try to bring the issue of health care and the needs of our health care system and put it in with the issue of refugees. I have seen the fundraising letter in which the Conservatives try to almost blame refugees, as though they are the reason there are deficiencies in our health care system.

If the Conservatives want to talk about health care, then why do they not bring in an opposition day motion to deal with that? If they want to talk about refugees, then why not bring in an opposition day motion to deal with that? It seems that the motivation is to cater to the extreme right and put immigrants in a negative light. What are the member's thoughts on that?

[Abdelhaq Sari, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Mr. Speaker, that is a good question, and it is an opportunity to get back to the issue of correlation. Making simplistic correlations between immigration, asylum seekers, vulnerable people and the health care system is nothing but two-bit politics. We really need to work very hard to make sure that Canadians truly understand the real impact indicators that are causing problems and longer wait times. I think that the parliamentary secretary was clear in his explanation earlier that it is, in fact, a very small percentage of people who benefit from this.

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

Mr. Speaker, since my colleague stopped on his own, I will give him the opportunity to continue in a few moments.

Like me, the member for Bourassa is a member from Quebec. As he knows, a few years ago, what became known as Roxham Road turned into a ordeal overnight. First, it is an ordeal for immigrants, but it is also an ordeal for those around the world who followed the rules and then learned that it was possible to circumvent the rules by arriving via a small road called Roxham Road. The Canadian government posted a huge sign telling people that it was illegal to cross there. After that, it was changed to “irregular”. Okay, they changed the wording.

What I want to know from the member for Bourassa is what happened next. When the agreement between the United States and Canada was finalized, it took the Liberal Prime Minister almost a year to make it public. Like me, the member is from Quebec, and for almost a year, the Quebec government had to bear all the social costs of this immigration, which—

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

I am going to interrupt the hon. member to give the hon. member for Bourassa a chance to respond.

[Abdelhaq Sari, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I did not hear a question but I think the comments are very clear.

We must be careful. We are talking about the health care system. Once again, a correlation is being made with an immigration issue, which we agree on.

During that time, I was a city councillor in Montreal. We did indeed welcome these people. I am the member for Bourassa, and I work very hard to strike that balance I talked about: being a country that is welcoming and that offers services while also ensuring there are no abuses or cost increases. We all have to work very hard to that end.

I think that going back on a particular issue and creating yet another simplistic correlation between immigration, asylum seekers and the problems with the health care system is unacceptable in the House.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Bourassa spoke about respect for fundamental human values. I would like to know whether he feels that taking 40 months to process an asylum claim is an example of fundamental human values.

Does he believe that it is time for his government to give Quebec—which has demonstrated fundamental human values by welcoming twice its demographic weight—the $700 million it is owed?

[Abdelhaq Sari, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Mr. Speaker, that is one way to ask the question.

Is there an issue? The answer is clearly yes. Have there been problems? Are there things that need to be corrected? In fact, my introduction was along those lines. Are the delays really long? Yes, but what has the government done?

I have identified four important measures that the government is working on to reduce costs and delays, so that immigrants are treated humanely and with the dignity that Canadians can truly offer.

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

Mr. Speaker, during this debate, I have been thinking back to 2016. A new government had been formed in the fall of 2015, and it had committed itself to accepting Syrian refugees into Canada out of necessity because of what had been going on at that time in Syria.

I remember this vividly: In the late winter, after a lot of the refugees had come into Canada, we had a number living with host families in Kingston. A local organization that had been coordinating all of this put on an event to thank everybody who had gone out of their way to be so generous in accepting and bringing new refugees into their home so that they could start a new life.

I remember being at this event. I was a newly elected member of Parliament at the time and very proud of the work that our government had done. At the request of the organizers to say something to the group, I got up and talked about the incredible generosity of our community and of those who had extended their hands and opened the doors of their homes to let refugees in. I thanked them profusely for doing that and for being so Canadian in a moment of need for people around the world. I concluded my remarks, and I sat down.

At the end of the event, there was a reception, and an individual came up to me and said, “I really liked what you said, and I thought that it was great that you thanked all of the local families for being so incredibly generous, but you forgot to thank the refugees.” I asked what he meant. He said, “You forgot to thank them for picking Canada.” I do not think I have ever forgotten that moment, and I have thought a lot about it over the last 10 years. When the individual said that, he made me realize something that is so incredibly true to the Canadian identity.

Thinking about it, a refugee, an asylum seeker, is somebody who has chosen to leave everything behind in their home country, pick up their family and leave property, assets and valuable connections to their history and their culture behind. They go and probably stay in a refugee camp for several months before struggling and fighting their way to get to Canada to start a brand new life for their family, in an area they have never been to before that has a cultural identity they have never been a part of. When we stop to think about it, who could we possibly want more in our community, to build our community, than fighters like that?

When that individual made his comment to me and he said that I had forgotten to thank the refugees for picking Canada, this dawned on me: Who could we possibly want more than people who are willing to fight? These are not people who want to milk the system. These are not people who want to just lie back and do nothing. They put everything on the line to get here. They want to fight for their survival most times. I cannot think of anybody whom we would want more to build our country and contribute to our country.

It actually made me think of my grandparents, albeit they were not refugees by the definition that we use today. Like so many other immigrants who came to this country after the Second World War, my grandfather on my mother's side was from Italy. Their country was destroyed. My father was from Holland. Again, their country was destroyed. My grandparents decided that they wanted to pick up and go to another country to start a new life for their families. As a result, they came here.

My Italian uncles set up construction companies and contributed to this country. My grandfather worked as a janitor in a hospital so that his son could go to law school and one day become a member of provincial parliament, and his grandson is standing before the House right now. That is the result of our embracing culture and identity in Canada. Somebody mentioned it earlier today. They said, “Unless someone is of indigenous descent, we have all come to this country over the last couple of hundred years.” That is the reality of the situation.

Conservatives are focused on saying that we are trying to paint a picture of them setting up a false dichotomy of us versus them, and that is not true. It is right in their motion. The fourth item says, “Canadians that have paid into the healthcare system their whole lives”, obviously talking about seniors, “are unable to get the healthcare they deserve in part because resources are going to false asylum claimants”. They are intentionally setting up a dichotomy of us versus them because they know that is dog whistle politics.

What is dog whistle politics? We use this term a lot, and I will define it for members. Dog whistle politics is when a human hears nothing unusual, but dogs hear a loud, clear signal. In other words, it is political messaging that seems harmless but carries a hidden meaning for a specific group, and the hidden meaning in the motion before us is, “refugees are stealing your health care”. That is the message they are giving. They will take their videos and clips, feed them to their base and say, “The leader of the opposition can stop this. All we need is $25 from you. Donate now.”

We have been watching this for the better part of 10 years, and certainly since this Leader of the Opposition came along, it has gotten a lot worse, but that is what we are experiencing right now. We are experiencing and watching, once again, Conservatives trying to say that refugees are horrible because they are taking everything away from our Canadian identity. Why do they have to phrase it like that? I asked the Conservative member who spoke previously a very pointed question.

The Conservatives will claim that, once a claimant has been rejected, they should no longer get health care. Well, once a claimant has been rejected, they do not get health care. What they are leaving out of this, and it is a nuance that is very important to point out, is that, just like in all of our justice processes, there is an opportunity to appeal. The Conservatives are saying that, once the first decision has come down that a claimant is not going to be given asylum, they should not be given any health care through the appeal process.

Well, if that is how they feel, if their issue is really about the appeal process, why did they not come in here today to put forward a motion that says we should get rid of the appeal process? It is because that would not have generated the same kind of fundraising that they plan to generate off this.

I am extremely disappointed to, once again, have to stand in the House and call out Conservative tactics, the games that they play, to intentionally divide Canadians. That is what they are doing now, and that is what I have seen them do for years. I think it is absolutely shameful to do it in this regard.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Speaker, here we are today, on the fourth anniversary of the war that Russia implemented on Ukraine, and what did we hear from a Conservative? A Conservative got up and stated that “the program for bogus refugee claimants” costs the same as the transfer to the whole province of Saskatchewan at $1.6 billion a year. Basically, the member is insinuating that every single immigrant and every single refugee has a bogus claim.

Maybe the Conservatives are trying to hide the fact that, up until yesterday, they had only asked four questions of the health minister. They could do better.

Does my colleague agree that these refugees and immigrants pay taxes, that they work in our health care system and that this exercise here today is shameful?

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

Mr. Speaker, I told the story at the beginning of my speech about Syrian refugees. The thing is, a lot of them have been here long enough that we can see what they have become and what they have accomplished. I am so incredibly proud to have Syrian refugees, or former refugees who are now Canadian citizens, living in my community. They contribute to my community in a way that genuinely has an economic impact, a social impact and a cultural impact. That is what we are talking about here.

Conservatives are more than happy to paint all asylum seekers as illegitimate because they do not care about due process or protecting vulnerable individuals.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I find it interesting that the Conservatives are not standing up to ask questions of the member. I think it is because the member has really nailed the issue.

The Conservative Party, particularly the leadership of the Conservative Party, has made the determination to take a very important issue that Canadians are concerned about, health care, and then tie it to the issue of refugees. They are trying to give this false impression that it is because of refugees that we have problems with health care. It is feeding to that far right. I am wondering if the member could amplify that particularly disrespectful way of dealing with the politics of rage.

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

Mr. Speaker, just like this member, I have seen this happening for years now. The Conservatives just rage bait and look for opportunities to get people amped up so they can then say, “Don't worry. We can fix the problem. All you have to do is donate $10 now.” I have seen it so many times.

I have been the subject of those emails throughout the years after I have spoken in the House. The Leader of the Opposition is the absolute worst at it. It should surprise my colleagues, who are heckling or laughing or who have said stuff during my speech today, that they are still sitting on that side of the House. They had a 25-point lead, and as soon as somebody else came along, Canadians could say that they prefer this guy rather than that guy. Can the Conservatives not just rip the band-aid off and get rid of him?

[Kelly DeRidder, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have just listened to 10 minutes of literal rage baiting across the aisle, and then they are saying that we are the ones doing the rage baiting for what we are trying to do here. It is absolutely incredible.

I want to be very clear. I am from Kitchener Centre, and I am incredibly proud of the asylum seekers who have come to my riding, like the Rohingya community, like all the other communities that come to Kitchener Centre. This is not a complete compilation of immigration as a whole.

Why are rejected asylum seekers getting better health care than Canadian citizens? This is the only thing we are asking. We are not doing a huge immigration consensus here today. The member can stop the antics and answer the question.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will answer the question. The reality is that what she is saying does not exist. She asked why rejected applicants continue to get health care. They do not. The problem is that that member and the Conservative Party consider somebody rejected before they have gone through the entire due process they are entitled to. What that member should have done was bring a motion here saying that they want to get rid of the appeal process altogether, because had they actually done that, they would have been doing something they believe in, rather than just—

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Montmorency—Charlevoix.

[Gabriel Hardy, Conservative, Montmorency—Charlevoix, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as I rise today, I am not only addressing the House. I also want to address the families of Quebec, the seniors who are waiting for care, the young parents who do not have a family doctor, the sports enthusiasts who are taking care of their health and the athletes from coast to coast to coast who work hard and do everything they can to succeed. Today's debate is about our priorities, about a fundamental issue. Are we putting Canadians first when making decisions about our country?

Here is the crisis. The interim federal health program for asylum seekers will soon cost Canadian taxpayers $1.5 billion. Canadians have this information today because the Conservatives forced this study at the Standing Committee on Health. That figure would not have been released otherwise. We demanded transparency. We did our job as the opposition and we held the government to account for its decisions.

In 2016, the Liberal government expanded the coverage provided to asylum claimants above and beyond just emergency care. Vision care, counselling, assistive aids or devices for persons with physical limitations, home visits, residential care and transportation were added. Today, over 50% of the program's costs relate to supplemental care like physiotherapy, occupational therapy, speech therapy and interpretation services. That is a far cry from essential emergency services.

Another even more worrisome issue concerns the fact that even when an asylum claimant is turned down by the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada and asked to leave the country, he or she is still eligible for all of these services while physically present in Canada.

We know that some of these individuals stay in the country even after they have been asked to leave, and they still have access to services. They might have been turned down by our system, but they still qualify for federal services. Why would anyone agree to pay for services offered to people who no longer even have the right to be in Canada? That is the real question.

Even now, in 2026, six million Canadians do not have access to a family doctor, and not for lack of trying on their part. Families are doing everything they can to get a family doctor. Doctors are also doing everything in their power to see as many people as possible and help as many people as possible with their health concerns. Still, the numbers just do not add up.

I would like to remind everyone that, over the past 10 years, 100,000 people have died while waiting for health care. In Quebec, emergency rooms are overcrowded. Seniors are waiting months for home care. Children are waiting for speech therapy services. Families are paying out of pocket for physiotherapy and other supplemental services. Despite making significant financial contributions to our health care system, people often have to turn to the private sector and pay out of pocket to access services more quickly.

That begs the following question. Is it normal for a person who has been rejected and deported by our legal system to have access to supplemental care that many Canadian citizens cannot even afford? Is it normal for citizens who pay taxes to be unable to access services to which non-residents or rejected claimants are entitled? Are they entitled to it? That is the question.

Emergency care should always be covered. We will never oppose that. It is emergency care. Canada is a welcoming and responsible country. People in an emergency situation can always find help here in Canada. However, offering extended supplemental care while citizens have to wait is a bit much. That is not compassion, it is poor management of priorities.

We need to shorten wait times and deport bogus asylum seekers, not give them perks so they stay in the country and use resources that many Canadians do not have access to. I would like to make a quick reminder here. There are 86,000 rejected claimants who are still in the country. There are currently half a million people in our country without status. In 2025, there was a backlog of 300,000 asylum claims. These are not small numbers.

We also learned in committee, and this should not be overlooked, that some service providers covered by the interim federal health program can charge up to five times the provincial rates when services are provided under this program. A Canadian is charged the normal price. A non-resident or asylum seeker is charged five times more. The cost has risen from $211 million to nearly $900 million a year, with projections of $1.5 billion by 2030. That is a lot of money. It is not sustainable to think the we are going to get there. It is not responsible, and it is not respectful to Canadian citizens, taxpayers, and those who pay for this service that is available in Canada.

As I near the end of my speech, I would like to draw a parallel with something that has been bothering me and that I consider to be extremely important. I wonder if the Liberals are investing in the right areas. Let us see where this is going. Here, we are talking about investments in health, but when it comes to the health of Canadians, sports, and physical activity, suddenly there is no money, no funding for that, and it is not a priority.

As another Olympic cycle draws to a close, we can all agree that the Olympic Games that we just experienced were outstanding. We are proud of our athletes, proud of our flag and proud to leave home to represent our country and show off our homegrown talent around the globe. I think that the ratings for the final Canada-U.S. hockey match were probably fairly high. Obviously, every Canadian was hoping for a win.

However, now that the dust has settled, we have to be honest and consider why a country as rich and as proud of its history and culture as ours does not seem to be performing to the level we would like to see on the international stage. To be clear, I am talking about something far beyond medals. Canada can do better, but it means looking at the facts, at priorities, at how taxpayer money is invested and spent. In 2022, federal funding for sports amounted to $327.1 million a year. That is less than 1% of the country's total annual budget. Over five years, the average annual investment is $263 million.

Let us compare that to health care. I see a strong link between sports, physical activity and health. Getting back to the subject, I want to point out that, by 2030, the government will be spending $1.5 billion a year on health care benefits for asylum seekers, some of whom have even been denied and do not have the right to stay in the country. That is six times more than the average annual investment in the entire Canadian sport system. Is that a reasonable balance? How is that fair? Is that responsible, knowing that for every dollar invested in prevention, that is, in physical activity and health, there is a return on investment of between $3 and $20?

National sports organizations are talking about a real financial crisis right now. Some are even at risk of shutting down. They are being asked to provide greater safety in sport, more inclusion and better governance. These are extremely important objectives, but the organizations are not being given the means to achieve them. According to a Deloitte study, 90% of national sports organizations need government funding to exist and to continue operating. However, looking at this government's choices, that is clearly not a priority for the Liberals.

The cost of physical inactivity is quite staggering. A preventive rather than reactive health care system should really be a priority. Investing in sport means investing in making Canadians more active. In fact, nearly 20 years ago, the cost of physical inactivity was estimated at $7 billion. That is what it cost taxpayers. That cost is certainly higher today. Canadians and Quebeckers could be in much better shape, physically and mentally. More physical activity means less obesity, less diabetes, less heart disease and less pressure on our emergency rooms and our health care system.

If we are serious about improving the health of the population, we must make decisions accordingly, whether we are talking about sports, our young people or our communities. We need to reduce the pressure on the health care system. Instead of spending billions of dollars to manage the consequences, perhaps it is time we started thinking about prevention. That is the connection I want to make here today. On the one hand, the government does not have enough money to invest in prevention; on the other hand, it is going to spend nearly $1.5 billion on health care for people who do not even have the right to be in our country. I think we need to think about that.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting that the member spent as much time as he did with regard to health care. I have a challenge to put to the member opposite, and I have had the opportunity to raise this.

The Conservative Party, in particular the Conservative leadership, has made the decision to try to paint refugees in very negative light, saying that Conservatives are going to talk about the issue of health care, an issue that, there is no doubt, Canadians are concerned about, while tying it in to all sorts of misinformation related to refugees in Canada. It is ultimately meant to feed the far right within the Conservative Party.

Can the member explain to Canadians why the Conservatives chose to do that as opposed to having an opposition day motion to talk about health care as an issue?

[Gabriel Hardy, Conservative, Montmorency—Charlevoix, QC]

Mr. Speaker, that is a very good question.

In fact, there is nothing far right about what we are doing. It is simple math. When there are 300,000 people waiting and we offer them services, it costs taxpayers a lot of money. Those same taxpayers, who contribute to society, do not have access to health care. When we ask someone to leave the country because, upon analysis, they have no right to be here, but we continue to pay for their care until they leave, it is not logical and it is disrespectful to the people who contribute to the health care system.

This has nothing to do with the far right. This is a factual analysis. We are in favour of offering support, but we want to ensure that we are respectful of taxpayers.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the member pointed out the flaws in Quebec's health care system. He referred to the fact that the range of services is limited, and rightly so. However, he knows very well that the main reason for that is that the federal government is committing to funding only 21% of health care costs. The provinces are responsible for 79% of health care costs. As my colleague knows, in Quebec, we were locked down for a year because the network was too vulnerable.

However, after the pandemic, what did the federal government offer? Although needs grew to $28 billion a year, the government decided to provide $4.6 billion a year. My colleague's leader said that he might increase that offer.

Does the member not think that there should be a bit more for health funding and transfers?