Debates of Feb. 24th, 2026

Opposition Motion—Interim Federal Health Program

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague made a reference, I think, to two or two-and-a-half million illegal asylum seekers—

[Matt Strauss, Conservative, Kitchener South—Hespeler, ON]

No, I didn't.

[Carlos Leitão, Liberal, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Mr. Speaker, that is what I heard. Can he clarify that? Is it really two million?

[Matt Strauss, Conservative, Kitchener South—Hespeler, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I apologize for seeking to allay my colleague's misapprehension or misunderstanding of my comments.

I said there are two million outstanding files in the immigration department, overall, awaiting processing. That is not the number of illegal refugee claims.

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

Mr. Speaker, essentially, the motion is trying to address an issue that was largely created by the sudden surge in asylum claims and the lack of resources to process them. In some countries, like France, it takes less than six months to process an asylum claim. In Germany, it takes eight months. Here, it can take up to three or four years.

Does my colleague agree that we must press as hard as we can to improve the processing of asylum claims?

[Matt Strauss, Conservative, Kitchener South—Hespeler, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I think it is the case that, fundamentally, failure has been rewarded in the Liberal government, year after year, for 10 years straight. That is why the passport office broke. That is why the post office has broken, and that is why the immigration system is broken.

Eventually, those who govern need to exercise some judgment. They need to be able to say, “This isn't working well. We're going to change it,” instead of doubling down again and again and shovelling money at failed processes. That is why we are seeing the broken immigration system we currently have.

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

Mr. Speaker. I want to thank my colleague for his wonderful in-depth speech on what is wrong with this program and our immigration system as a whole. I asked a question earlier about this. In health care transfers, Saskatchewan receives $1.5 billion a year for the whole province of Saskatchewan. This program will receive, by 2029-30, $1.6 billion. There are several people in this program who received it after they had their asylum or refugee claims rejected.

The actual wording of this calls it an “interim” program. Should an interim program ever receive as much money as a province for a health care transfer?

[Matt Strauss, Conservative, Kitchener South—Hespeler, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is important to put these numbers into perspective. Eventually, million, billion and trillion all becomes a haze. The cost of this program has gone up 10 times over the years that it has existed. It used to be $86 million. Now it is $1 billion, and that is about to exceed the entire federal health transfer to the province of Saskatchewan. It is bananas. It is out of control. It is a runaway train. I wish we did not even have to have this conversation. A competent immigration minister would have fixed the problem years ago.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is unbelievable how the Conservatives continue to want to spread misinformation. They say, “2030” and “$1.5 billion”. Even the leader of the Conservative Party says that. They are basing it on the Parliamentary Budget Officer, who did not take into consideration Bill C-12. I understand what Bill C-12 would do, and if the Conservative Party was honest with Canadians, they would give up and concede that it is misinformation to say $1.5 billion because it is just not true.

Why does the Conservative Party continue to spread misinformation?

[Matt Strauss, Conservative, Kitchener South—Hespeler, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would just ask my colleague opposite not to shout. I do not think that sort of aggression is warranted here.

The Parliamentary Budget Officer made his report. He said this is the projection. It could change if Bill C-12 does not see court challenges. It likely is going to receive court challenges. Many groups have already said they are going to challenge Bill C-12 in court. The PBO said his office has the resources to redo the analysis with this question of Bill C-12 taken into account. We asked him to do that at committee in a motion that the Liberals are currently obstructing. Rather than getting to the bottom of it, in good faith, as we will look into this with the PBO, who wants to, the Liberals are obstructing their own agenda. It is bizarre.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am splitting my time with the member for Marc-Aurèle-Fortin.

I rise today to speak in strong opposition to the Conservative motion targeting the interim federal health program, and this is after the Liberals have already rolled it back.

Let us be clear about what the motion does. It scapegoats newcomers and refugees. It suggests that denying preventative care, prescription medication, dental treatment and mental health services would somehow produce savings. It would not. It would simply shift costs from preventative care to emergency rooms, from primary care to acute care, and from federal responsibility to provincial systems, where treatment is far more expensive and outcomes are far worse.

The Conservatives and the Liberals are approaching this challenge in the wrong way, and they should know better. Their previous changes to the interim health program were struck down by the courts because they were deemed unconstitutional in 2014 under the Harper government. This is the same playbook, same narrative and same fearmongering.

The Conservative leader keeps saying that he turned over a new leaf, but he is back to the same old games of politicizing social issues for political gain, whereas deeper nuance and compassion are necessary. It is disappointing watching the Conservatives walk the same path over and over again into a dead end.

The evidence is unequivocal: When governments adopt an emergency-only model of care, health outcomes deteriorate and long-term costs increase. Preventative and primary care are the most cost-effective interventions in any health care system. Denying early access to medications, mental health supports, dental treatment and assistive devices does not eliminate the need for care; it delays it until conditions become acute and far more expensive to treat.

We have seen this before. Under former prime minister Stephen Harper, supplementary coverage under the interim federal health policy was restricted. The result was confusion, suffering and documented harm. Courts found the cuts to be cruel and unusual. After 2015, those restrictions were reversed because they were harmful and counterproductive. Canada learned that lesson once; we should not repeat it.

Nonetheless, taking a page from the Conservatives, the Liberals have now introduced copayments under the interim federal health program in budget 2025. They frame it as modest fiscal restraint, but decades of health policy research demonstrates that even small user fees deter access to health care, especially for low-income and medically vulnerable populations.

The population covered under the interim federal health program is among the most vulnerable in Canada: refugees and refugee claimants who often arrive after suffering war, persecution, torture and prolonged displacement. Many arrive with trauma, and many arrive with chronic conditions that have gone untreated for years. They have extremely limited financial means. For some living in deep poverty, a prescription charge is not symbolic. A 30% copayment for mental health counselling is not modest. A copayment for mobility aids, dental care or vision care is not a small inconvenience; it is prohibitive.

In practice these copayments function as a denial of care. The consequences are not hypothetical; they are predictable. When people cannot afford medications, hypertension goes untreated, leading to stroke, and diabetes goes unmanaged, leading to amputations, kidney failure or intensive care admission. Untreated infections escalate into hospitalization. When people cannot access mental health supports, traumas worsen, crises escalate and emergency interventions become necessary.

Each avoidable hospital stay costs thousands, sometimes tens of thousands, of dollars. The savings generated by a small copayment are dwarfed by the downstream costs of acute care. Instead of containing costs, this approach escalates them. Instead of relieving pressure on the system, it intensifies pressure on emergency departments and provincial health budgets. It undermines newcomers' ability to acquire language skills, to work, to contribute and to feel like equal members of society.

If we are serious about fiscal responsibility, then we must focus on the actual cost drivers within the interim federal health policy. One of the most significant drivers is the prolonged enrolment due to backlogs in the immigration and refugee system. The IRB needs resources. When claims take years to process, individuals remain on the interim federal health program coverage longer than necessary. That is an administrative problem, not a refugee health problem.

The solution is clear: Accelerate fair and timely claim processing, invest in adequate staffing and resources for the IRB, ensure early comprehensive primary care upon arrival and maintain full interim federal health program coverage without copayments during this transition period. Let us remember that the interim federal health program is a temporary program. Early care reduces long-term costs, and timely decisions reduce prolonged enrolment. These are structural, evidence-based solutions. Punitive copayments are not. Moral obligations and economic logic align.

Protecting access to essential health care for refugees is not only a moral obligation; it is also sound economic policy. Healthy newcomers integrate more quickly, enter the workforce sooner, contribute to taxes and support their families. When we deny care, we delay integration and increase long-term public expenditures.

The Conservative motion seeks to frame this as a question of fairness to taxpayers, but fairness requires facts. The facts show that cuts in copayments in refugee health care cause preventable harm, increase long-term expenditures, shift costs to provinces and undermines integration. That is neither fiscally responsible nor socially responsible. This is not evidence-based policy-making.

Rejecting division is what we must do. At its core, the motion divides. It suggests that refugees are a burden to be managed rather than human beings entitled to dignity and basic health care. Canada has chosen a different path. We have chosen evidence over ideology. We have chosen compassion aligned with fiscal prudence.

New Democrats will not support measures that scapegoat vulnerable people or repeat policy failures we have already corrected. We have to learn from the past. We know that restricting refugee health benefits causes preventable suffering and greater long-term expense. We know that even small user fees deter access for people living in deep poverty. We know that preventative care is more cost-effective than emergency intervention.

The Conservative motion is misguided, and the NDP will reject the motion. The Liberal government's decision to impose copayments under the interim federal health policy risks repeating a costly mistake. The responsible course of action is clear: Maintain full coverage under the interim federal health program, eliminate copayments, address administrative backlogs and invest in early comprehensive primary care.

For these reasons, the NDP will oppose the motion and any other attempts by the Conservatives or the Liberals to roll back this important health care delivery for all.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member has talked a great deal about immigration over the years here on the floor of the House of Commons.

I have a question related to temporary visas, whether for visitors or workers. People will often apply for an extension just prior to their visa's expiry, which gives them implied status. I am curious about the NDP's position in regard to someone who has implied status and that implied status expires. Should they be entitled to claim refugee status?

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member knows very well, in terms of refugee status, what the requirements and eligibility rules are. Those would apply to the individuals who are applying. That determination should be made independently and not by politicians. It is made at the IRB.

The government should be properly funding the IRB so it can process the claims accordingly, instead of creating a huge backlog like the one we are faced with right now that, as a result, is having an impact on the interim federal health policy. That is what the government should do, and the member knows it.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton—Bkejwanong, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I think the member has a fundamental misunderstanding about our motion. Everyone knows that we have a duty of care for legitimate refugees, but what we are talking about in the motion is people who have had it ruled that they are not eligible to be here in Canada and in fact should be deported, yet there is $1 billion being spent on their health care, and they are getting superior health care to what Canadians who are paying their taxes get.

The NDP is always arguing for more benefits in the health care system for Canadians. Does the member not think that $1 billion would be better spent on Canadians instead of on people who should be deported?

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I actually know the motion very well, as well as the intentions behind the Conservatives. Let us be clear: What they are also talking about is denying access to care for people who are under an appeal provision. In Canada, there is a thing called due process.

By the way, the federal court and the Harper government already did this. The Harper government took away interim health care provisions for supplementary benefits for refugees, and the courts ruled this to be unconstitutional. Apparently the Conservatives have not learned their lesson, because here we are talking about the same thing with the same old approach again.

What the NDP fights for is head-to-toe care for every single person in this country.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her compassionate speech.

My question has to do with a point that she raised in her speech and in her response to the government, and that is the atrocious processing times for claims. We are currently talking about roughly 40 months, whereas some European countries that are also facing waves of migration have implemented measures to speed up the process. In France, for instance, the wait time is around six months, and in Germany, it is around eight months or just slightly longer than that.

Should the government take urgent action to reduce these unacceptable processing times?

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member is absolutely correct. What the government must do to address the situation we are faced with right now, which is a problem caused by the government's inaction, is to ensure that there are adequate resources to process the applications in the system. When the Liberals do not, they create a huge backlog, and that has implications and ramifications.

Quebec, for example, is in fact faced with a situation where health services are being impacted because there is a huge backlog. The government must be fair and just. Quebec and all provinces deserve equitable treatment. They deserve support from the federal government in support of immigration and for refugees so people can access health care when they need it, and at the same time, have applications processed in an expeditious manner.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government hides its xenophobia in omnibus bills such as Bill C-12, and the Conservatives have just laid it all out in front of us with today's motion.

I am just fact-checking: How does the Conservative disinformation campaign with today's motion harm migrant, refugee and immigrant communities?

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives are preying on the most vulnerable for their own political gain, and frankly it will escalate anti-immigrant and anti-refugee sentiments in the broader community. That does not do anybody any good, so I call on the Conservatives to do the right thing: Stop the rhetoric and stop trying to gain with their fearmongering on the backs of refugees and migrants.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is my turn to say a few words on an extremely interesting and important matter.

I will do it in English to make sure we are all on the same page.

I will start by saying that, as a government, we need to manage public funds responsibly. However, that cannot be accomplished—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

Order. The hon. member for La Pointe-de-l'Île is rising on a point of order.

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague just said that he would speak in English to make sure that everyone understands. I find that unacceptable. He can speak in English or in French. Everyone should be able to understand with the help of the interpretation service.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

That is not a true point of order.

I invite the hon. parliamentary secretary to continue his speech.

[Carlos Leitão, Liberal, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's point, but I think it is important to say this in English.

However, that cannot be accomplished at the expense of our values.

We have already taken steps to ensure the sustainability of the interim federal health program and make sure that vulnerable people have access to care. We are maintaining necessary health care coverage while taking important steps to manage public funds. Recognizing these pressures, the government has taken a number of targeted and concrete steps to control costs and strengthen sustainability.

What did we do?

First, to control costs and strengthen sustainability, we implemented a copayment model for certain products and services. In budget 2025, the government introduced copayments to cover the supplemental benefits offered under the program. As of May 1 of this year, beneficiaries will cover part of the cost of their products and services. Basic medical services, such as doctor's visits and hospital care, will remain fully covered. However, beneficiaries must now cover part of the cost of supplemental benefits to ensure a certain balance with provincial public programs.

Let us be clear. Eliminating health care does not eliminate health care needs. Postponing essential care until provincial insurance can cover it, as the Conservatives are proposing, would be counterproductive for provincial finances. We would simply be shifting these expenses to the provinces.

Second, we suspended some updates to the interim federal health program benefit grids to make the program more rigorous. These benefits are continually adjusted to match the provincial and territorial benefits available to Canadians. I want to emphasize here that the federal assistance program for asylum seekers is not a deluxe program. The beneficiaries of this program do not receive benefits that go well beyond what the average Canadian receives.

Finally, and this does not pertain exclusively to the program, we have also put an end to hotel accommodations to make the program more affordable.

One of the most significant changes we are making stems from Bill C‑12, which was passed by the House and is now before the Senate. Bill C‑12, passed by the House, is part of the ongoing efforts to reduce the number of refugee claims. The bill will establish new grounds of ineligibility, strengthen system integrity and support the implementation of more efficient decision-making timelines for refugee claims. By cutting down abuse, improving efficiency and optimizing claims processing, these reforms will shorten the period during which people rely on temporary federal supports.

By putting measures in place that support the long-term sustainability of the interim federal health program, we are ensuring that people continue to have access to essential services until they become eligible for provincial health insurance. It is important to note that this set of measures demonstrates that our government is actively monitoring the real financial pressures associated with the federal refugee assistance program and managing them responsibly. We will ensure that this program remains fair and sustainable through structural changes, cost sharing, strengthened oversight and audit mechanisms, and the alignment of benefits with provincial systems.

It is also important to note that in 2025, the number of asylum claims dropped by roughly one third compared to the previous year. This decrease shows that the measures already in place are helping to ease the pressure on the system. We are already taking action. Our Conservative colleagues mention in their motion that the cost of the system has skyrocketed, from $211 million to almost $900 million.

What they did not mention was the reason for such an increase. Essentially, it related to an increase in the number of people using the program. What caused this increase in the number of people using the program and claiming asylum in Canada? We do not live on an island, cut off from everything going on around us.

I clearly remember the Roxham Road situation in 2018, because I was working for a different government at the time. Thousands of people arrived in Canada. Why did these thousands of people come to Canada? I am sure that the Conservatives would have set up a barrier or built a wall and told all these people to go away. Back in 2018 and 2019, they came hoping that Canada would help them following the election of a U.S. president who is still around today and who sparked a mass movement of people who wanted to leave the United States for a more welcoming country like ours. Naturally, this caused a lot of disruption, and we had a hard time adjusting our programs to cope with it. However, we could not look the other way either. Barricading the border or telling people to leave because we could care less about their problems was out of the question. That is not the Canadian way. Canada has never been like that.

It has cost us a lot and it is still costing us a lot, but we will be able to normalize this situation. Again, we do not live on an island that is completely isolated from what is happening on the rest of the planet. That is why our government has taken steps to deal with the situation and normalize things by ensuring that benefits are harmonized with provincial programs. It is not true that asylum seekers have a deluxe health care system. Frankly, people need to get out there and see what is actually happening.

We have also introduced copayment mechanisms to improve the system's viability. We have passed legislation to ease the pressure.

What I find least acceptable about our opposition colleagues' motion is point (iv), which suggests that Canadians do not have access to health care services because people from elsewhere are monopolizing the system. Frankly, that is an unacceptable correlation. By that logic, it is the fault of foreigners, of asylum seekers, that poor old Canadians do not have access to health services. That is what we call rabble-rousing.

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

Mr. Speaker, we are here today because over six million Canadians are without a doctor. Our health care system is broken, and I will add that the Liberals broke the system. It is those in our rural and remote and indigenous communities who are facing this. Do they know that between indigenous women and non-indigenous women in Canada, indigenous women are twice as likely to die from pregnancy-related deaths? Communities in British Columbia are missing OB/GYNs. They do not have access to them. Rural and remote communities are facing this.

Our motion today is saying that the government needs to give it sober second thought and to rethink health care in our country. Will the member not agree that this needs to be done?