House of Commons Hansard #88 of the 45th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was benefits.
This summary is computer-generated. Usually it’s accurate, but every now and then it’ll contain inaccuracies or total fabrications.
Opposition Motion—Interim Federal Health Program Members debate a Conservative motion to review the Interim Federal Health Program (IFHP), citing its quadrupled cost and projected rise to $1.5 billion by 2030. Conservatives argue the IFHP provides deluxe benefits to failed asylum claimants, while Canadians face healthcare crises. They propose restricting benefits to emergency care and expelling foreign criminals. Liberals condemn the motion as divisive and fearmongering, highlighting government reforms like copayments and Bill C-12. Bloc and NDP members oppose the motion, stressing federal processing backlogs and humanitarian obligations, while criticizing Liberal copayments. 47500 words, 6 hours in 2 segments: 1 2.
Similarities Between Bill C-2 and Bill C-12—Speaker's Ruling The Speaker rules on a point of order concerning the similarity of government Bills C-2 and C-12. The Speaker allows Bill C-2 to proceed due to its broader scope, despite acknowledging extensive overlap. 1000 words, 10 minutes.
Sergei Magnitsky International Anti-Corruption and Human Rights Act Second reading of Bill C-219. The bill strengthens Canada's sanctions regime against human rights abuses, foreign corruption, and transnational repression. It seeks to define transnational repression, ban sanctioned officials' family members, and revoke broadcasting licenses for state-controlled media from regimes committing atrocities. While supported, Members express concerns regarding the safety of political prisoners' families and administrative burdens, aiming for amendments in committee. 7400 words, 1 hour.
Lena Metlege Diab LiberalMinister of Immigration
Mr. Speaker, on this side of the House, we will never jeopardize the safety and health of Canadians. Our program keeps all Canadians safe. We will continue to work here, and we are asking the other parties to work with us for all Canadians, including Quebeckers.
Rhonda Kirkland Conservative Oshawa, ON
Mr. Speaker, interim federal health program costs have quadrupled in four years. Providers are billing up to five times the provincial rates for care for rejected asylum claimants. Meanwhile, folks in Oshawa are waiting for care. They cannot find a doctor or access to benefits like vision care, physiotherapy and counselling, despite paying into the system their whole lives. Rejected claimants are receiving better health benefits than Canadians.
Will the Liberals help us make this right and support our Conservative motion that preserves fairness and compassion?
Immigration, Refugees and CitizenshipOral Questions
Thunder Bay—Superior North Ontario
Liberal
Patty Hajdu LiberalMinister of Jobs and Families and Minister responsible for the Federal Economic Development Agency for Northern Ontario
Mr. Speaker, do members know what the real question is? Will the Conservatives stop voting against investments in health care? Will the Conservatives stop voting against things like a national dental care plan, which is deeply connected to the health of Canadians?
I agree with my colleague. The Conservatives are punching down on the most vulnerable Canadians. I will say this. We are all in this together; Canadians are united in ensuring that we have a universal health care system that is there for people regardless of their ability to pay.
Sébastien Lemire Bloc Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC
Mr. Speaker, 85,000 pensioners are victims of errors in their old age pensions because of the Cúram software. Taxpayers are on the hook for $5 billion in cost overruns, and that does not even include the Canada pension plan.
According to the Liberals, that is okay because “this is good news for Canada”. Pensioners having financial problems is a success story. The Liberals do not think that we should be calling that out. We should be celebrating that instead.
What are the seniors who have been waiting nine months for their pensions complaining about?
Patty Hajdu LiberalMinister of Jobs and Families and Minister responsible for the Federal Economic Development Agency for Northern Ontario
Mr. Speaker, they want to stay in the very distant past. In fact, they would prefer benefits to be administered on a 60-year-old system, using paper, and be hand-administrated.
That is not what the government has decided to do. We are continuing the modernization of benefits for all Canadians. The number that the Bloc Québécois continues to use is misleading to Canadians. In fact, it is the sum for the modernization of three major benefit programs. It is the sum that is invested in Canadians' ability to get their benefits online, in time and in the modern world.
Sébastien Lemire Bloc Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC
Mr. Speaker, there is already less celebrating going on.
Pensioners who have not received their old age pensions for nine months would like to celebrate with the Liberals, but they cannot because they do not have one red cent. Taxpayers would like to celebrate too, but when they think about all of the better ways to spend $5 billion than on software cost overruns, they lose their childlike joy. The Liberals will not fix the problems with Cúram because they do not believe that there are any problems to begin with.
Now is it clear why a fully independent public inquiry absolutely needs to be called?
Stephanie McLean LiberalSecretary of State (Seniors)
Mr. Speaker, I want to be perfectly clear. To date, $1.5 billion has been spent. This covers completion of the old age security transformation and initial development for employment insurance, and $6.6 billion is an upper ceiling for all the projects that this covers. This amount may never be spent.
It would have been cheaper if it had been undertaken between 2005 and 2015, when the Conservatives were in power. They knew that the tech was from 1966. My mother was only 10 years old. Let me be perfectly—
PensionsOral Questions
Brad Redekopp Conservative Saskatoon West, SK
Mr. Speaker, 10 years ago we had a stable immigration system that Canadians were proud of. Now the Liberals have transferred to automated approvals and have abandoned security checks from certain countries. People can enter Canada, make a claim for asylum and receive approval in the mail without even talking to a government official. It is auto-approval. The countries listed will shock members. Iran is on the list, which encourages senior members of the dreaded IRGC to seek refuge here, all with no security checks.
Why did the government, including the current Minister of Justice, remove safeguards on Canada's refugee system?
Sean Fraser LiberalMinister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada and Minister responsible for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency
Mr. Speaker, when we have a series of questions like this that have come on the floor of the House of Commons this week, we have to invite ourselves into the conversations that the Conservative Party must have had as it was getting ready.
We can imagine its members all sitting around asking what they are going to prioritize this week to help them raise some money. Could they tackle, perhaps, the Canada-U.S. relationship? No, that is just going to upset their members, who think Canadians are having a hissy fit. Could they tackle affordability for families? No, that goes against type. Could they do health care? Sure, they could do health care, but they will make sure they do it in a way that helps no one.
Punching down by demonizing refugees, saying they are going to cut health care, is a blatant political opportunity, not something that is going to help a single person in the country.
Sukhman Gill Conservative Abbotsford—South Langley, BC
Mr. Speaker, when the Prime Minister's former chief of staff, the current justice minister and the member for York South—Weston—Etobicoke ran the immigration file, their reckless policies broke our asylum system, overwhelming it to the point that the Immigration and Refugee Board was forced to gut critical safeguards just to keep up. Nearly 25,000 individuals were admitted to Canada without a single in-person interview.
Why did the Liberals dismantle our critical safeguards for our refugee system and put Canadian lives at risk?
Sean Fraser LiberalMinister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada and Minister responsible for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency
Mr. Speaker, the translation has been difficult to hear over the anti-refugee dog whistle that has been coming from the other side of the chamber all afternoon.
We are talking about people who are fleeing violence, war and persecution. Do you not remember the images of the people who died, washed up on the shore like Alan Kurdi from Syria? Have you not sat down with members of the Ukrainian community who have found safe haven in Canada? Have you not had the opportunity to speak with the Afghans—
Immigration, Refugees and CitizenshipOral Questions
The Speaker Francis Scarpaleggia
I know the hon. minister knows this, but comments go through the chair.
Sean Fraser Liberal Central Nova, NS
Mr. Speaker, let me flip this around. I know you have had the opportunity to meet with families from Syria, because we worked together during the effort. I know you have had the opportunity to meet with Afghans who have served alongside the Canadian Armed Forces, and I know you have supported Ukrainians finding safe haven in Canada, fleeing Putin's war of aggression.
Harb Gill Conservative Windsor West, ON
Mr. Speaker, under the Liberal government, the asylum system has become so overwhelmed that the Immigration and Refugee Board eliminated key safeguards.
Nearly 25,000 claims were approved without an in-person interview, and in some cases decisions were issued without a direct conversation with an official, which is ridiculous. These policies were put in place when senior members of the current government were responsible for the file.
The immigration minister must explain why these safeguards were removed. Are the Liberals not concerned about the safety of Canadians?
Anita Anand LiberalMinister of Foreign Affairs
Mr. Speaker, in my role, I have the privilege of speaking with leaders and citizens around the world, and I repeatedly hear that countries respect and want to emulate the immigration system in this country.
In addition, I would ask the opposition to vote with us on Bill C-12. This would be a reform to strengthen our asylum system.
We have also recently announced changes to the interim health care program by introducing certain services relating to copayment. These are responsible, fiscally important moves—
Immigration, Refugees and CitizenshipOral Questions
Michelle Rempel Conservative Calgary Nose Hill, AB
Mr. Speaker, I want to go back to something that the government House leader and the justice minister said. Since 2020, 86% of failed asylum claimants are still in Canada, and 100% of those people are receiving taxpayer-funded benefits that are better than most Canadians receive, like vision care and physiotherapy.
How is it punching down to ask that we restore fairness by limiting the benefits of failed asylum claimants to emergency, life-saving care?
Lena Metlege Diab LiberalMinister of Immigration
Mr. Speaker, the new government takes these issues very seriously. That is exactly why our mandate was to restore immigration and to strengthen our immigration system.
I agree with the foreign affairs minister that our system is the envy of the world. We are proud of the system we have. We have curved asylum by one-third. We have introduced measures to bring in physicians and health care workers, global talent. Work with us—
Immigration, Refugees and CitizenshipOral Questions
Michelle Rempel Conservative Calgary Nose Hill, AB
Mr. Speaker, the justice minister just dismissed the fact that the Liberals are rubber-stamping and approving asylum claims from Iran without an in-person interview.
This is the type of sloppy, far-left Liberal garbage that has undermined Canada's consensus for immigration and made it harder for millions of people—
Immigration, Refugees and CitizenshipOral Questions
The Speaker Francis Scarpaleggia
I do not know if we will find that word on a list of unparliamentary—