Debates of Feb. 24th, 2026

Opposition Motion—Interim Federal Health Program

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry—Soulanges—Huntingdon, QC]

Madam Speaker, as my colleague who spoke before me mentioned, we will be voting against this Conservative motion for several reasons. I am quite proud of my riding's position. When I read the motion, I felt somewhat uncomfortable because it seems to paint all refugees with the same brush. I will explain why we are opposed to the motion.

The Bloc Québécois has given this a lot of thought. This is such a sensitive issue. It is not easy to talk about subjects like immigration and refugees in the House without being accused of being racist. I would like to share an experience that I had. If, after my 12 years in federal politics, someone were to ask me what my most difficult moment in the House was, I would say that it was when my colleague Alain Therrien, the former member for La Prairie, and I were accused of being racist by the leader of the NDP. He did that because we dared to raise a sensitive issue in the House, namely that of immigration, our intake capacity, refugees and need to evenly spread the intake of asylum seekers among the provinces.

That was the worse slight that was cast upon me, the one that caused me the most pain. I am making this confession because, in the Bloc Québécois, we have been saying for some time that insufficient control over immigration is a problem. Today, we are talking about the refugee issue, but immigration is a very sensitive and heated topic. It is true that Quebeckers and Canadians are welcoming people, but uncontrolled immigration has caused many social and economic problems. It is not just the fault of immigrants. It is because of the general context and the lack of supervision.

I am pleased that my political party is standing firm today and opposing the motion on the grounds that it lacks rigour.

First, we deplore the federal government's inability to process asylum claims, which unduly inflates the program's costs. Ultimately, we would like the federal government to review the generosity of the program, without going so far as to offload the problem onto the provinces, leaving them on the hook for the most expensive health services.

We also denounce the lack of nuance in Conservative rhetoric, which suggests that asylum seekers who commit crimes are not sent back to their countries of origin. We are proud to say that the Geneva Convention, to which Canada is a signatory, stipulates that refugees are entitled to public assistance.

That being said, let us acknowledge that this is still a significant issue. Today's debate is respectful of everyone's opinions, comments, and arguments. It is important to discuss this in a healthy manner. It feels good, because in 2019 and 2020, that was not the case here at all. Everyone was outraged, starting with former prime minister Justin Trudeau. In addition, some Conservative members of Parliament did not fully support our position, which was to demand more fairness in the treatment and reception of refugees.

That said, I think that my colleague was correct in saying that the problem with the services program is not necessarily the cost overruns, but the way the government is managing the program through the Department of Citizenship and Immigration and the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada. People should not have to wait 40 months before receiving a decision on their status. Some refugee claimants want protection. If I am a refugee seeking protection, I should not have to wait 40 months. I should not have to wait six, eight or nine months to get a work permit while my status is being determined. A person who requests protection wants to work and earn a living. They are not usually looking for a handout. Given how long it takes to get a refugee status decision, however, some people do file asylum claims to take advantage of the system and probe for weaknesses.

The government is currently making cuts almost everywhere, in all departments, including the Department of Citizenship and Immigration and the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada. Existing resources are not enough to allow them to clear their backlogs and also deliver decisions in a reasonable amount of time. A sort of domino effect comes into play. If it takes less time, it costs less: It costs the federal government less and it costs the provinces less.

I think that that is the key responsibility. The federal government is unable to provide services to citizens and refugees. It is unable to provide services in a timely manner. I am sorry to say it, but I think that the federal government is no good. It is no good at providing services. It is no good at providing services in a timely manner. It is no good at doing any of the things within its jurisdiction: It is no good at EI, it is no good at old age security, it is no good at passports. There is always some problem with processing times. I am not saying that the public servants are no good, I am saying that they do not have the resources they need to achieve their targets. That is because of outdated technological tools, methods of work, and especially the fact that teams are not getting what they need to be productive, effective and efficient in 2026. I think that is the biggest problem.

As the Bloc Québécois's public safety critic, I have observed that we are also dealing with a lot of illegal entries. Some people enter legally through a border crossing, but others enter the country illegally. That also creates pressure. As the critic, I can say that the government still has a lot of work to do to control its borders better.

I am an MP from southern Quebec. My riding and that of my colleague from Châteauguay—Les Jardins‑de‑Napierville receive the largest number of illegal immigrants entering the country. Unionized RCMP officers at the Valleyfield detachment say they would need twice as many officers to cope with this issue. They do what they can and they are really good, but they lack resources. Instead of cutting the RCMP's budget, the government should give them better equipment, better tools, and double the number of officers on patrol.

It will take resources to prevent migrants from entering our territory illegally. Above all, we must bear in mind that those trying to come here are often helpless, in distress and in need of protection. Ultimately, we do need to support those who arrive illegally, but we also need to crack down on the smugglers who exploit these people.

There is an issue that no one is talking about and, as critic, I would like to address it in the time allotted to me. Not all small municipalities in southern Quebec have first responders and fire trucks. They share their emergency services with slightly larger municipalities. Every time a first responder leaves a small municipality, it costs the municipality money. As we speak, there are no Quebec or federal programs that reimburse municipalities for costs related to migrants. However, when a freezing cold migrant walks out of the woods and needs first aid, it is often the municipalities, through their first responder services, that intervene.

All that is to say that there is much to discuss on the whole issue of refugees: support for municipalities, support for border services officers, and support for RCMP officers. In my opinion, the government is not on the right track demanding cuts that will lead to a deterioration in service delivery. In public safety, a budget cut means a decline in public safety and a lack of important tools for first responders, RCMP officers and border services officers.

I would like to close by saying that we need more debates like this to engage in respectful dialogue about the immigration situation in Quebec and Canada and its impact on our society.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to begin by sincerely thanking my colleague for her remarks, particularly when she recalled the unfortunate incident when she was accused of racism. I remember the situation very well. I could not believe what I was hearing, especially regarding the hon. member and our friend Alain Therrien. Such things must be avoided as much as possible.

I still remember that we were asking the government about Islamophobia just two years ago. We questioned the appropriateness of the government's appointment and the authority given to that individual. The government called us intolerant. Well, just a few days ago, the current Prime Minister discontinued that person's position. That is why everything in the world is relative. It is important to ensure that this is done properly and responsibly.

Let us talk about responsibility. Would my colleague agree that when immigration is managed irresponsibly, as it has been for the past 10 years, it creates problems, and that the primary victims of this type of irresponsible immigration are the immigrants themselves?

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry—Soulanges—Huntingdon, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question and for his empathy for the trauma that Alain Therrien and I experienced in the House when we were called racists by the former NDP leader.

My colleague is absolutely right. In our debates, we often talk about files and cases, but behind the refugee claims are human beings, families and children. Basically, the vast majority of these people want protection and a better life. Leaving one's country and one's family behind and going into exile is no picnic for those who do it for the right reasons. It is a big decision.

My point is that in order for us to accommodate them properly, our intake capacity needs to be respected. We in the Bloc Québécois have always said that what is really important is for the responsibility be shared among the provinces. Niagara Falls, Ontario, had decided to do its part for a few weeks. However, when tourist season was coming up, the city said that its hotels were full of immigrants and refugees and asked that they be taken back because it needed the space. That hurts.

We are being told that something is not working. However, the Liberals continue to sit on their hands. Why are the Liberals not requiring the provinces to take in their fair share of these refugees? That is a question I would like to ask a Liberal member, if there is an opportunity later today.

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

Madam Speaker, less than a year ago, Canada elected a new Prime Minister, who talked about stabilizing immigration. If we look at the actions he has taken since then, the copayment was brought back in the 2025 budget and Bill C-12 was introduced, which would deal significantly with asylum seekers. Where I agree with the member is that there needs to be a respectful level of debate as opposed to promoting anger and racial attitudes on such an important issue.

We recognize that we need to make some changes. I do not recall how the Bloc voted on Bill C-12, but I would ask the member to provide her thoughts on that particular issue.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry—Soulanges—Huntingdon, QC]

Madam Speaker, Bill C-12 was the subject of vigorous debate at the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security. We proposed amendments and improved the bill. However, a bill does not solve all of the problems.

There is often a tendency to forget about and abandon the people who have to deal with things like organized crime and organized smuggling groups in their small communities. These people live in small villages and they worry about finding migrants who have crossed the U.S. border illegally in their fields or forests. These migrants may sometimes be freezing cold, injured or suffering from hypothermia. I do not often hear about solutions to help these people. We need to talk about that. Immigration is a complex phenomenon, and I think that we need to look at several aspects of it. I would encourage the Liberals to listen to today's discussions.

[Burton Bailey, Conservative, Red Deer, AB]

Madam Speaker, before I speak on the motion today, I would ask for the Speaker's indulgence to acknowledge the four-year anniversary of the Russian invasion of Ukraine. I pray for peace and an end to the war.

I rise today to speak on the very important Conservative motion calling on the federal government to review the interim federal health program and put Canadian taxpayers and the health care of Canadians first. At a time when six million Canadians are without a family doctor and wait times to access health care have doubled in the past 10 years, the Canadian health care system is in crisis.

At the health committee, we have heard testimony from a variety of witnesses, be they health associates, health care professionals, those seeking to become health care professionals or government officials at all levels and more. Everyone acknowledges that the health care system in Canada is not operating at its best, and that this must change. However, this change can only happen if there is courage from those at the top, including the federal government.

Federal government officials often like to punt responsibilities to the provinces for health care and, indeed, health care is delivered by our provinces. However, when a federal program like the IFHP is funding health care for non-Canadian citizens and proven bogus asylum claimants through our provinces, that is when tensions arise between our provinces and the federal government, which brings me to the motion Conservatives have put forward today.

Our motion is simple. Conservatives believe that Canadians deserve the best health care their taxes are funding. It is the responsibility of the federal government to ensure that those tax dollars are being spent in a way that puts Canadians first. Canadians are compassionate people, but that does not mean that their compassion should be taken for granted and abused. That is exactly what the interim federal health program under the Liberal government has been doing.

Here are a few facts from the Parliamentary Budget Officer. Between 2020-21 and 2024-25, the cost of the program ballooned from $211 million to $896 million. That is four times the amount in just four years. The PBO estimates that, in total, the IFHP will reach almost $1 billion in 2025-26 and rise to over $1.5 billion in 2029-30. The current number of eligible beneficiaries qualifying for the IFHP today is 624,000. In 2029-30, that number is expected to grow and reach over 680,000.

The Parliamentary Budget Officer also reports that since 2016-17, the cost per in-Canada beneficiary under the interim federal health program has risen at a significant rate. During questioning at committee, I asked the PBO to compare the health cost increase for the IFHP beneficiary with the increase for a typical Canadian over the same period. The response indicated that IFHP beneficiary costs grew by 14%, compared to just 5% for Canadians. In other words, health care costs for foreign nationals and fake asylum claimants covered under the IFHP grew at nearly triple the rate of the cost increases for average Canadians.

What kinds of health care costs are we talking about here? According to the Government of Canada's IFHP website, coverage includes what the government is calling “basic” care: hospital services; services from medical doctors, registered nurses and other licensed health care professionals; ambulance services; and lab and diagnostic services such as blood tests and ultrasounds. It also covers “supplemental coverage” like psychologists and counselling therapists; occupational therapists, physiotherapists and speech language therapists; assistive devices like prosthetics, mobility aids and hearing aids; home care and long-term care; urgent dental care; limited vision care; and medical supplies and equipment.

To put it into perspective, a Canadian citizen facing mental health challenges may be offered MAID by the Government of Canada, but a potentially fraudulent refugee claimant receiving taxpayer-funded health care under the IFHP can access psychologists and counselling therapists. There is something deeply disturbing about that.

To make matters worse, government officials are not even aware of how many of the over 600,000 people in this country who are eligible for these IFHP benefits are receiving them fraudulently and abusing the system. The government has no clue how many people applied for asylum fraudulently, how many have been denied asylum and are still receiving health care, or how many are set to be deported but are still in this country and receiving health care.

It must be said that without the Conservatives probing into this issue at the health committee, Canadians would not have been made aware of the significant abuse that has been happening every day in this country. This is why it is so important that at committee, later today, we will be resuming debate on a Conservative motion to request that the PBO prepare an updated report and demand that the Department of Immigration and the Department of Health reveal all the information they have, and if they do not have the information, they must find it.

In fact, all members around the table agreed that an updated report would be beneficial to understand how new measures would impact the program and also to dig deeper into the details about the number of fraudulent asylum claimants. Unfortunately, the Liberal members received orders from the PMO and abruptly changed their minds. They decided to filibuster the meeting and stalled on getting answers for Canadians. Some are calling it a $1.5-billion cover-up. We will see later today whether the Liberal members of the health committee will put the health care of Canadians first.

What can be done about this massive Liberal fraud and abuse? There are some things that may be changed quickly, but others will take time. For instance, rejected asylum claimants should immediately have benefits under the IFHP restricted with the exception of emergency life-saving treatments only. There is absolutely no reason that an individual who has knowingly faked an asylum claim to stay in this country should be receiving public health care.

Another immediate change would be to expel foreign nationals convicted of crimes in Canada. The removal of individuals from our country who are deemed ineligible to remain here is just as important as ensuring they are not eligible to receive public health care paid for by Canadians.

Unfortunately, after 10 years of broken Liberal immigration policies, the long-term solutions are not a simple fix. Currently, there are nearly 300,000 people in Canada with pending refugee claims. This number, according to the PBO, is also set to grow given that the Immigration and Refugee Board is hearing cases at a pace that is slow and bureaucratic. Getting faster processing times is crucial both for legitimate refugee claimants who are fleeing war and persecution to get an answer, but also so that Canadians are not funding fraudulent asylum claimants. It is both compassionate and fair.

Unfortunately, we have heard at other parliamentary committees and through news reports that rather than enforcing our laws and ensuring fraudulent claims are not valid, nearly 25,000 refugee claimants were admitted without a single in-person interview by the IRB and its file review policy. That is not right. It is federal bureaucrats avoiding responsibility so they do not have to do the paperwork. It is potentially dangerous for Canadian public safety and also incentivizes more abuse from fraudsters who know they will be able to game the system.

Canada has a problem at every point of the immigration system. At the starting point, our streams are being overwhelmed by fraudulent claims of asylum. At the midpoint, while these fraudulent asylum claims are being processed, taxpayer-funded resources like housing and health care are being provided to these fraudsters. At the end point, whether or not the Immigration and Refugee Board decides to do its job properly to screen applications, the problem is twofold: The backlog could grow because of slow processing and more fraudulent claims, or the IRB could decide to turn a blind eye and rubber-stamp anyone and everyone.

The interim federal health program is a symptom of a much greater problem. For a decade, our immigration system has been abused and, in turn, has turned our health care system into an unworkable mess. We hear testimony at committee that the federal government has no oversight or accountability for billing under the IFHP, meaning that health care providers could bill up to five times the amount they can for a Canadian. This incentivizes abuse at the provider point, as fraudulent health care claimants could be treated before Canadians.

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

Madam Speaker, I think it is really important that we recognize that there are many who intentionally spread misinformation. Let us think of it in this sense: The Parliamentary Budget Officer and the projections that were being made were based on something that did not incorporate Bill C-12.

Bill C-12 comes out of Bill C-2. Our Prime Minister and the government brought in Bill C-2 to deal with asylum seekers, and the Conservatives know that. When they talk about the $1.5 billion, they know it is wrong, because Bill C-12 is now in the Senate, and it comes from Bill C-2. That is the only thing we can get out of Bill C-2 from the Conservatives.

Would the member not acknowledge that the Parliamentary Budget Officer does not take into consideration Bill C-12?

[Burton Bailey, Conservative, Red Deer, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is a coincidence that the member mentions that the PBO report does not include provisions in Bill C-12. That is why the Conservatives moved a motion at committee calling for an updated PBO report that would include the provisions of Bill C-12, as well as further important details that the Government of Canada seems to have no clue about, including the number of fraudulent asylum claims, the number of claims that have been denied where people are still receiving health care, and the number of people who should have been deported but are still in Canada.

Liberal members at the health committee were delaying and filibustering the motion even though they were also calling for an updated report. The member should encourage his Liberal colleagues to stop obstructing Parliament, work with us and get this project done.

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

Madam Speaker, I have a question for my Conservative colleague. Right now, I am working on the Driver Inc. issue, which involves dangerous truckers on our roads. It seems that some of these truckers do not necessarily have legal status in the country. Some do, but others do not.

In one case, a driver killed someone on the road, fled and was brought back here to face justice. He will likely have to serve time in prison. Under my colleague's motion, this driver would have simply been deported. He would never have had to face justice and he would never have to serve time in prison.

I am trying to understand. Is that really what he is proposing?

[Burton Bailey, Conservative, Red Deer, AB]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my Bloc colleague. As a proud Albertan, I believe our two provinces share much in common.

To answer the member's question, I must say that there are many things I would have to ask the shadow critic about, because I sit on the health committee. I am disappointed that the Bloc members are not going to support us on the motion. In committee, we hear all the time about how they want more money for health care, and here we are coming up with some solutions. This could means thousands more doctors in Canada, but they are going to block this Conservative motion.

As for the member's request, I would ask him to ask one of my colleagues who would have better information. On the health care side, the Bloc members keep asking for more money, so they should support the motion.

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

Mr. Speaker, our motion today calls on the federal government to review the federal benefits that have been given to asylum claimants, in order to find some savings for the taxpayer; to restrict benefits being given to asylum claimants who have had their asylum claims rejected; and to provide transparency on federal spending on this whole thing.

We have put in Order Paper questions and found that in 2020 alone, there were 86,000 rejected claimants. These people have had their application to be a refugee in Canada rejected, yet in some cases they have spent up to four years in Canada after that rejection, getting premium health care services that even Canadians are not eligible for.

What does the member have to say about that?

[Burton Bailey, Conservative, Red Deer, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am very proud of the work the health committee is doing. Canadians would otherwise not even know about the 86,000 asylum claimants who should have been deported and are claiming health benefits. Some of them are receiving very expensive procedures. Some of them are receiving cancer treatments that they should be receiving in their home country after being deported.

I want to make it clear that Conservatives support regulated and legitimate refugee claims. People who are legitimately fleeing war and persecution deserve compassion. We, as the Conservative Party, do support that compassion.

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Canada is a generous country. We are proud of our universal health care system, and we are proud of our tradition of welcoming newcomers. However, generosity must never come at the expense of fairness.

Today, Canadians can see that their health care system is under pressure like never before. Six million Canadians do not have access to a family doctor, and waiting lists are growing. Emergency rooms are overflowing, and provinces are calling for more resources to maintain basic services. In this context, a fundamental question arises: Is it fair that failed asylum seekers can receive taxpayer-funded health benefits that are sometimes more advantageous than those offered to Canadians who have contributed to the system all their lives?

At the Standing Committee on Health, the Conservatives highlighted a troubling reality. Some health care providers charge up to five times the provincial rates for services provided under the interim federal health program. Yes, I said five times. Meanwhile, the federal government claims it has no financial leeway. However, the Parliamentary Budget Officer's report on the 2025-26 expenditure plan gives us a clear picture of the country's financial situation.

The total planned budgetary expenditures for 2025-26 are $486.9 billion. Of this amount, $222.9 billion must be approved by Parliament. The Canada health transfer will increase to $54.7 billion this year, up $2.6 billion, or 5%. It is the largest direct federal contribution to the provinces for health care funding. At the same time, elderly benefits, including OAS, will total $85.5 billion for fiscal year 2025-26. This represents about $1 out of every $6 spent by the federal government. Debt-servicing costs will reach $49.1 billion, which is roughly equivalent to the entire Canada health transfer. These figures show one thing: Every dollar counts.

When program costs balloon and nobody reins them in, that reduces the government's ability to pay for Canadians' basic priorities: seniors' care, health transfers, infrastructure and economic security. Skyrocketing costs associated with the interim federal health program are symptomatic of a bigger problem: The Liberal government has lost control of Canada's immigration system. The cost of the program has more than quadrupled in the last four years from $211 million to $896 million. In addition, the cost of the IFHP is projected to rise to $1.5 billion by 2029-30.

Our immigration system used to be known for striking a balance between compassion and rigour. Now, it is completely overwhelmed. Delays are mounting. Removals are delayed. Costs are soaring. When the asylum system is out of control, that affects all public services, including housing, schools and hospitals.

The Parliamentary Budget Officer's report notes that transfers account for 60.5% of federal expenditures. This means that the majority of federal spending is going to payments to provinces, individuals and other organizations. We therefore have a duty to ensure that each transfer program is administered with the utmost care.

Given that public debt already costs $49.1 billion a year in interest and the Parliamentary Budget Officer projects that these charges could reach almost $70 billion in the next few years, it is irresponsible for the government to tolerate overbilling or unjustified benefits.

Let us be clear: Canada must provide emergency health care to every person within its borders. That is a fundamental humanitarian principle. However, it is unconscionable for ineligible asylum claimants to continue to benefit from expanded federal benefits while Canadian citizens are waiting for care.

We on this side of the House are bringing forward meaningful solutions. First, we propose restricting federal benefits received by ineligible claimants to emergency health care only. Second, we propose strictly aligning the IFHP rates with the provincial rates to prevent overbilling. Third, we suggest fast-tracking asylum claim processing and expediting the removal of rejected claimants. Fourth, we suggest adjusting immigration levels to match Canada's actual capacity. We need to ensure there are enough jobs, housing and health capacity before we take in more immigrants.

The Parliamentary Budget Officer's report shows that expenditures related to seniors are increasing rapidly due to population aging. This means that pressure on public finances will continue to increase over the coming years. We must therefore make responsible choices. We must prioritize Canadians who have paid into the system their whole lives. We must protect the viability of our health care system. We must restore the integrity of our asylum system.

Fairness is not an abstract concept; it is the cornerstone of public trust. When Canadians feel that the system is stacked in favour of those who bend the rules instead of those who follow them, trust is eroded. We can be a welcoming yet responsible country. We can be compassionate yet careful. We can stand up for Canada's humanitarian values while protecting taxpayers' legitimate interests.

The Conservatives are committed to restoring fairness to Canada's asylum system, which is unfortunately broken. At the end of the day, a government must have one clear priority: ensuring fairness, accountability and sustainability for our public finances so that our health care system stays available for all future generations.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette—Manawan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question concerning the last part of the motion, which reads: “(d) pass policies to immediately expel foreign nationals convicted of serious crime in Canada”.

Under the existing legislation, a person who is found guilty of an offence must serve their sentence before being deported, while under the motion, such individuals would be deported without serving their sentence. I am thinking of the victims of Driver Inc. truckers, for example. What would the victims' family members and loved ones think if they were told that the person found criminally liable would no longer have to serve a sentence here and that they may not even have to serve their sentence abroad? Why put that in the motion?

We asked other colleagues this question and none of them had an answer. Can the hon. member give us an answer?

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for that very good question. If there are asylum seekers whose claims have been denied, who are criminals and who must serve a sentence, I think that they should serve it in Canada, unless there are explicit agreements with countries that can confirm that the person will serve their prison sentence in the country in question. However, if there is any doubt at all, then the person should serve their sentence in a Canadian prison in order to bring justice to the victims.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am going to pick up on the idea of misinformation. There are some members who know full well that, when they talk about the Parliamentary Budget Officer and the $1.5 billion, it does not take into consideration Bill C-2, which the Prime Minister and the government brought in last June and that ultimately led to Bill C-12, which is now before the Senate. That will have a profound impact on what the Parliamentary Budget Officer has to say.

Would the member not concede that Bill C-12 addresses a major concern from the Parliamentary Budget Officer and that the Conservatives are saying $1.5 billion knowing full well that this is not the case?

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, it is important to understand that Bill C‑12 was introduced because objections were raised with regard to the problems with Bill C‑2. A solution was found with Bill C‑12.

Now, is discrediting the Parliamentary Budget Officer, who conducts assessments, a normal way of doing things for the Liberals? The Liberals have disagreed with the Parliamentary Budget Officer's numbers on several occasions. He is an independent official who provides information. No one on that side of the House will ever tell the truth. At least someone has access to the figures and can give us forecasts. If the forecast changes and things cost less, then so much the better for everyone. However, this is the data currently available, and I trust the Parliamentary Budget Officer.

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

Mr. Speaker, we put forward this motion to close a billion-dollar loophole in our health care system and to restore order to our broken immigration system. Our motion is about fairness and protecting people who need emergency care. It would stop the government from giving top-tier health care programs to non-citizens who have had rejected refugee claims, while six million Canadians cannot even find their own personal doctor.

I am just wondering if my hon. colleague has some more comments about that.

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as I said in my speech, we have been very clear. If people need emergency care, then of course we are committed to providing such care. However, the report that was tabled and that was discussed at the Standing Committee on Health clearly indicates that the system is being abused.

As we speak, there are people in Canada whose asylum claims have been denied and who are receiving extended health care, while there are six million people who do not even have access to a doctor in Canada. That is just wrong, and this situation needs to be fixed.

This goes beyond the immigrants themselves. This is about how the program is managed. Health care companies are charging five times the normal cost to treat asylum seekers. It is unacceptable that taxpayers should have to pay five times the cost because the care is being given to a failed asylum claimant. The system is being abused by companies that also have to answer these questions.

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Surrey Newton, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with not only a good friend of mine, but in fact a great friend of the Sikh community, the hon. member for Winnipeg North.

The interim federal health program, or IFHP, is a temporary program. It supports people who do not yet have provincial or territorial health coverage. It is also an important tool to protect the health and safety of Canadians while supporting vulnerable people who are seeking Canada's protection.

Let me address the claims behind the motion before us.

The first is on the growth in costs. Yes, costs under the IFHP have increased, but we must be honest about why. The cost of this program depends mainly on two things: how many asylum claims are made, and how long it takes to make final decisions.

When claim volumes are high and processing times are long, costs rise. The good news is that under our government, asylum claims were down by about one-third last year. This will reduce pressure on the IFHP. Through Bill C-12 and other measures, we are closing loopholes at the border, tightening visa rules and discouraging misuse of the asylum system. These actions reduce future surges and shorten delays. That is how we control costs responsibly.

Second, the opposition relies heavily on the projections from the Parliamentary Budget Officer. We respect the work of the PBO, but this report presents an incomplete picture. It does not account for the recent changes to the IFHP announced in budget 2025, the expected impact of Bill C-12 on claim volumes and processing time, and the possibility of further future adjustments. It also assumes that the government will do nothing more, which is simply not true. When opposition members claim that the program will cost far more in the future, they are relying on projections that ignore reforms already under way.

Third is the claim that asylum claimants receive better care than Canadians. The IFHP provides basic and temporary coverage while claims are processed by the Immigration and Refugee Board. Essential care, such as visits to a doctor or a hospital, will continue to be fully covered. This protects public health and avoids higher costs later. For supplementary benefits, such as some vision care and medications, we are making measured changes. Starting in May, there will be a $4 copayment for filling or refilling a prescription and a 30% copayment for other supplementary services. These changes were announced in budget 2025. They are expected to save hundreds of millions of dollars each year. They also align the IFHP with other publicly funded programs, including those for people on social assistance. At this time, essential care remains fully covered. We will monitor the impact closely to protect public health and meet our legal and humanitarian obligations.

Fourth, the motion claims that asylum claims are preventing Canadians from getting health care. There is no evidence for this. It is difficult to measure exactly how much pressure asylum claimants place on the health care system, and rejected claimants are only one portion of the IFHP users.

My two daughters are physicians who are proudly serving Canadians, and I can say that Canada's health care challenges mainly come from a shortage of doctors and nurses, an aging population and long-standing system pressures. Blaming asylum seekers will not fix wait times. It will not train nurses, and it will not build hospitals. That is why our government is investing in health care for Canadians.

More than six million Canadians are now eligible for the Canadian dental care plan, which is saving families hundreds of dollars a year. With budget 2025, we are investing $5 billion in health care infrastructure. We are all well aware that this is the first time leadership has been shown by a federal government to intervene in this particular program. Through pharmacare, mental health investments and co-operation with provinces and territories, we are strengthening health care based on medical need, not the ability to pay.

Let me turn to the proposals in the motion. Part A calls for reviewing benefits to find savings. We already agree with this principle. That is why we introduced copayments for supplementary benefits. These changes will save hundreds of millions of dollars each year. We can remain open to further examination, but the motion ignores what has already been done.

Part B calls for limiting rejected claimants to emergency life-saving care only. This sounds simple, but it is not. Some people cannot be removed for humanitarian reasons. Limiting them to emergency-only care would create a contradiction. We would be saying we cannot send them back but also denying them basic primary care. This also risks pushing people into hospital emergency rooms instead of to family doctors. That increases costs and pressure on the health care system. We can show limited openness to reviewing how long coverage lasts, but the Conservative proposal would likely create higher costs and worse outcomes.

Part C calls for more transparency. Our government is already transparent. We have provided information to Parliament. We asked the PBO to examine the program. We answered Order Paper questions. The number of people covered and cost are already public. A new formal reporting law is therefore unnecessary.

Part D calls for immediate removal of non-citizens convicted of serious crimes. In Canada, criminal law comes first. People must face justice and serve their sentences before removal. If we change this rule, we would remove a real punishment for serious crime. People could commit crimes and simply be sent home.

Recently I had a discussion with one of the top young criminal defence lawyers, Gagan Nahal, who is also running for a city council position. I wish him the best. In fact, he agreed with me that they should be punished and serve sentences before they are sent back to their home country. The motion would weaken deterrence and threaten public safety as well.

I also want to speak about politics and accountability. The Conservatives say this motion is about accountability in health care spending, but if they truly care about accountability in the health care system, they would support my private member's bill, Bill C-239, which proposes to strengthen accountability under the Canada Health Act. The Conservatives cannot say they want accountability on one hand and then block an accountability bill on the other.

This shows the motion is not really about fixing health care; it is about playing politics with vulnerable people. The IFHP is not only about compassion. It is about public health and smart spending. Many asylum claimants will eventually become protected persons, permanent residents and possibly citizens. If we deny basic health care now, we will likely pay much higher costs later through the emergency care system. The government is acting responsibly by reducing asylum claim volumes, speeding up decisions, introducing copayments and investing in health care for Canadians. While the Conservatives debate what services to cut, we are focused on health care based on medical needs and fairness.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have known our colleague for a long time, and I have a lot of respect for him. I expect him to do better. I expect him to not participate in the dog whistle politics that we are seeing from others down the way here.

To sum it up, the motion simply says our health care system is broken. A considerable amount of money is being spent, yet we have Canadians who are without doctors. The hon. colleague and I live in the same province, and I know there are British Columbians who cannot get in to see a doctor in his own riding.

What we are saying through this motion is that a sober second thought has to be given to our health care system. Would the hon. member not agree with that sentiment?

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Surrey Newton, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have a tremendous amount of respect for the hon. member. He is very compassionate and a very good friend of the Sikh community.

As I mentioned earlier, there are accountability issues with health care. That is why I brought in Bill C-239, which proposes to strengthen accountability under the Canada Health Act. I would request that the hon. member for Cariboo—Prince George and his leader support that bill, so we can provide the accountability that Canadians, particularly British Columbians, need.

[Mario Beaulieu, Bloc, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to know what my colleague thinks about the fact that 40% of asylum seekers have settled in Quebec, while our province represents just 22% of the population. Does he not think that we should find a way to better distribute asylum seekers across the country or at least financially compensate Quebec? We know that, in 2024 alone, Quebec had a $700-million shortfall for which it has not received compensation from the federal government.

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Surrey Newton, BC]

Mr. Speaker, on this particular question, I agree with the member.

When there was a non-controlled border location where people were moving into Quebec and piling up those claims, we, as a federal government, were fully committed to making sure that we were able to provide the resources that the Government of Quebec and Quebeckers needed to deal with those situations. I personally support him on this idea.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member for Surrey Newton has been a very strong advocate for Canada's health care system. He talked about those five fundamental principles that Canadians have really grown to love. The member has introduced a piece of legislation to ensure financial accountability.

When we talk about the importance of health care, financial accountability is in fact so critically important. Could the member provide some more thoughts about his private member's bill, which I applaud?