Debates of April 29th, 2026

Weights and Measures Act

[Jagsharan Singh Mahal, Conservative, Edmonton Southeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, when it comes to provincial jurisdiction, we must respect it. For any bill that comes to the House and goes to committee, the committee should decide, based on its rationale and based on logic, why the bill should or should not be passed and what changes should or should not be made.

Answering the question, yes, any subject that comes under section 92 of the Constitution of Canada shall be left to the provinces, and anything that has a larger impact on the entire nation shall be dealt with accordingly.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Federation of Independent Business has noted that red tape alone is costing businesses $18 billion a year. Red tape and regulations are strangling Canadian businesses.

I wonder if my colleague thinks that perhaps the Liberal government could introduce legislation to reduce some of this burdensome red tape rather than relying on the Senate to bring in a bill that has a relatively low impact on supporting businesses.

[Jagsharan Singh Mahal, Conservative, Edmonton Southeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my seasoned colleague has experience working in the House, debating on different committees and going through different pieces of legislation. That is a genuine concern.

Let us get rid of red tape. Instead of building it, let us get rid of red tape and focus on the results. Let us make sure that the legislation that we pass does not burden the common Canadian with additional red tape. Rather, let us focus on the results. Let us cut it short and focus on the results, so that Canadians can afford to pay their mortgages, buy a an affordable home and have an affordable life.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to being by saying that the Bloc Québécois supports the idea of modernizing the Weights and Measures Act. We have a lot of questions, and there will be a lot of work to do in committee in order to hear from a number of experts on the matter, given that this is a highly technical and specialized issue.

Before discussing the substance of the bill itself, I would like to share a story about a business that ran afoul of Measurement Canada. It demonstrates that the current appeals process and the lack of an ombudsman pose a major problem. This took place in the constituency of my colleague and friend, the member for La Pointe-de-l'Île. I want to share the sad story of an entrepreneur from his constituency who ran afoul of Measurement Canada.

This is the story of Mr. Lamontagne, president of a company called C.E.L.L. Inspection Inc., which was incorporated at the time these events took place. The company inspected commercial gasoline dispensers for accuracy and compliance. It was suspended by Measurement Canada in 2018 through a procedure that appears unusual and less than transparent.

Here is some background information. Between 2006 and 2018, Mr. Lamontagne was president of C.E.L.L. Inspection, which became an authorized service provider employing a number of technicians accredited by Measurement Canada. The company issued over 450 certificates, some of which relied on a method that Measurement Canada had approved. That method eventually led to the company's suspension.

C.E.L.L. Inspection worked with various types of volumetric standards, including some leased from Mr. Lamontagne, who also manufactured patented volumetric standards approved and certified by Measurement Canada. The use of these volumetric standards is what led to the problem. According to Mr. Lamontagne, these vapour retention volumetric standards were more accurate than the major brand-name volumetric standards recommended by Measurement Canada. In some respects, this may have worked to the advantage of the big oil companies. They were therefore using a more accurate technology that was recognized by Measurement Canada, and that would end up causing a problem.

Here is a brief review of the facts. In February 2018, a new inspector came to evaluate two C.E.L.L. Inspection company technicians, although she refused to consider the methods used for the vapour retention volumetric standard by the manufacturer, Jacques Lamontagne, even though these methods were approved by Measurement Canada. The Measurement Canada inspector abruptly ended the inspections after telling one technician that she had failed, but without offering a clear explanation or discussing the matter, meaning that she did not provide the usual guidance.

C.E.L.L. Inspection repeatedly requested the results and detailed reports on the tests from Measurement Canada, including through its lawyers in April 2018. Measurement Canada responded more than three months later with two notices of violation. The company responded to both violations, completed three corrective action plans and attended a meeting at which the company still did not receive a detailed report. Instead, it received its own corrective action report, which was amended with certain passages withdrawn and a few notes from the inspector.

C.E.L.L. Inspection then received an email from Mathieu Parent, a senior program officer at Measurement Canada, notifying it of its suspension. At that point, there were still two other certified technicians who could have continued to do tests for the company.

As member of Parliament for La Pointe-de-l'Île, my friend and colleague became aware of the issue and contacted the office of the then minister of innovation, science and industry, Navdeep Bains.

My colleague then held a conference call with Marc Gervais, director of parliamentary affairs for the Hon. Navdeep Bains, Measurement Canada president Diane Allan and Mr. Lamontagne. It was stated during the conference call that an independent appeal process could be undertaken.

C.E.L.L. Inspection therefore filed an appeal. However, this procedure consisted solely of an internal review of the case, without a hearing at which Mr. Lamontagne and his attorney could have presented their case. The revised decision was communicated on December 6, 2019, in a letter from Nathalie Campeau, regional director of Measurement Canada. It stated that the suspension was upheld, still in general terms, without specifically addressing the arguments put forward by Mr. Lamontagne and his lawyer.

C.E.L.L. Inspection filed a second appeal in January 2021, where Mr. Lamontagne was able to discuss his case via a conference call and email exchanges. The second review resulted in a brief two-page document that reiterated the suspension and indicated that, if his specific calibration setup required a unique operating sequence, then he should inform the regional volumetric specialist, even though his technology had already been approved and certified by Measurement Canada's chief engineer. It was just a formality when he was told that he needed to mention this.

My fellow MP then attended Mr. Lamontagne's third appeal hearing. Initially, the president of Measurement Canada said that she wanted to exclude the parties involved in the first and second appeals along with their reports. Excluding the previous parties from the decision-making process may have seem justified since this was an independent appeal, but failing to review and use the information on the facts that led to the suspension and resulted in it being upheld during the previous appeals was unusual to say the least. Looking into the facts that led to the suspension was clearly no longer a priority. Instead, the president tried to get C.E.L.L. to take further steps to regain its certification by refusing to compensate the company. She then broadly reiterated the previous decisions.

Ultimately, Mr. Lamontagne took legal action, but he did not have the same resources as the team of lawyers at Measurement Canada. As a result, he lost his first appeal on a technicality. For lack of resources, he could not pursue a long process in court to win. Faced with an army of lawyers, he was forced to concede.

In short, there is the appearance of serious misconduct and an abuse of power by Measurement Canada, which caused significant harm to C.E.L.L. Inspection and the calibration trolley manufacturer Jacques Lamontagne. Even trolleys with designation certificates were suspended by Measurement Canada, as they even cancelled the meeting for their certification. There does not seem to be a formal appeal process in place for the decisions of Measurement Canada, the agency responsible for certifying gas pumps at big oil companies' stations.

My colleague and friend, the member for La Pointe-de-l'Île wrote letters requesting meetings with the successive ministers responsible at various stages of the process involving Mr. Lamontagne and C.E.L.L. Inspection, as suspensions fall under the minister's authority pursuant to the registration agreement. His first request to Minister Bains led to a meeting with the minister's director of parliamentary affairs and Diane Allan, president of Measurement Canada, during which it was agreed that Mr. Lamontagne could initiate an independent appeal process. Subsequently, during a meeting with the minister's parliamentary assistants, my colleague indicated that the company had merely been referred to Measurement Canada's supposedly independent appeals process. More recently, the former minister of industry, now Minister of Finance, was reluctant to intervene, noting that Measurement Canada is a quasi-judicial body.

I have just outlined the unfortunate situation in which a Montreal-based company was apparently the victim of an error by Measurement Canada, and where it did not appear possible to correct that error. This is a serious problem. Does Bill S-3 adequately address the changes needed to the laws to ensure that this situation does not happen again? That remains to be seen. It needs to be examined. This is very technical. Would it be helpful to establish a genuinely independent appeal process in the event of a dispute? We say yes, without a doubt. Should an ombudsman position be created for this purpose? That is also quite possible. This is worth pursuing and I urge the government to improve how appeals are handled in disputes and to improve the impartiality of the process when decisions that appear unfair are challenged. We will see.

To my knowledge, the company had to cease operations because a technician intervened. Measurement Canada swapped out their technician during the assessment, and this technician failed to recognize an instrument that was, in fact, more accurate and certified by Measurement Canada. Using her discretion, she was able to drive a business into bankruptcy. That is unacceptable. Subsequently, my colleague, accompanied by company representatives, met with the team of the minister responsible, who informed them that an independent appeal process was an option. In the end, there was nothing independent about it. The case had to go to court, pitting a small business against an army of lawyers employed by Measurement Canada.

In my view, a grave injustice has been done here. While it is, unfortunately, too late to rectify it now, I do hope that the legislation passed here will enable us to approve rules, practices, procedures and safeguards to ensure that unfortunate stories like this never happen again.

As I said at the outset, we will be voting in favour of the principle of the bill at second reading so that this highly technical bill can be studied in committee and so that the committee can hear from key witnesses such as Hydro-Québec and Énergir. Manufacturers of measuring instruments such as Mr. Lamontagne, president of C.E.L.L. Inspection, will be able to share their stories.

As usual, we will try to keep a close eye on this government, which, with each new bill, is giving itself more and more powers, in particular in the hands of ministers, as Bill S-3 proposes. Yes, this bill does give the minister greater powers. We will try to act responsibly and ensure that Quebec's prerogatives are not undermined by this bill.

Given the technical nature of this bill, its scientific jargon and the many provisions it contains, we will ensure that the work done in committee is as rigorous and thorough as possible. We realize that the legislative and regulatory framework needs to be modernized, and that Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada has called for just that, because the department believed, as the parliamentary secretary said in his speech, that the current framework lacked flexibility and was becoming outdated with the advent of new technologies.

Digital measurement systems and all software that can be associated with trade are not implicitly covered by the current legislation. Budget 2024 talked about the government's intent to modernize this legislation, in particular to ensure that the minister has the authority to “establish standards and provisions related to calibration, inspection, contractors and certification.”

As members may know, the bill has 59 clauses. The first few, clauses 1 to 27, amend the Weights and Measures Act to modernize the framework that governs measuring devices used in trade. While most of the amendments are technical in nature and consensus-based and seek to ease the bureaucratic burden, others deal with expanding the minister's authority, which must be justified, as I was saying. Questions are also being raised about the proposed suggestions regarding the authorization, certification and use of certain measuring devices. For example, clauses 3, 5 and 10 of Bill S-3 propose giving the minister new powers to approve and review measuring devices. One of the measures that is of concern to us at the moment is that the minister could designate an entity other than the National Research Council of Canada to calibrate and certify reference standards for inspections. Why is that necessary? That is the type of question we are going to ask her in committee.

As for clauses 12 and 13, despite the fact that the Department of Justice has indicated that the bill complies with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, this bill grants significant powers when it comes to inspections and telewarrants. In light of the story I just told, it will be interesting to hear the reasons why it is absolutely necessary to grant the government such powers.

I see that I am running out of time. I think I covered the key issues. I prepared a 20-minute speech, but I had a little less time than I thought, so I will stop there.

Preventing Coercion of Persons Not Seeking Medical Assistance in Dying Act

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

moved that Bill C-260, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying—protection against coercion), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, we are familiar with the problem of people facing stereotypes based on immutable characteristics like race and gender, people being told that they are better suited to a particular kind of career path or that they are not fit to pursue certain subjects simply because of their personal characteristics.

Here in Canada, governments undertake to push back against this kind of stereotyping and to give life to the reality that people should not be pushed into presupposed categories. We pursue together an ideal of a Canada free from discrimination, of a truly just society. However, while this discourse and recognition is well developed across many dimensions of potential discrimination, we repeatedly fall short when it comes to recognizing and affirming the dignity, uniqueness, value and capacity of people living with disabilities and the elderly.

For too many people living with disabilities or aging, their experience is one not merely of being pushed into narrow boxes or categories but of something much worse. I ask colleagues here to imagine something. Imagine living a life in which interactions with people in positions of authority and other prominent social institutions often carry the explicit or implicit message that one is an object instead of a subject. All people think of themselves as, and indeed are, the protagonist of their own great story. Persons are not merely the potential recipients of someone else's support. Every person has a potentially heroic story arc of their own, a story arc that involves successes and setbacks and that brings triumphs and contributions that are consequential for the lives of others and for the communities in which they live.

Persons with disabilities are persons in this profound sense, yet many forms of discourse, rarely directly but often subtly, deny the agency, power and full humanness of those with disabilities. This is evident in the fact that those with disabilities are the only community wherein facilitated dying is offered to those who are not dying. The implication of this often unsolicited offer of death is not merely that they are better suited to a certain kind of vocation or career path but that these changes in capacity mean their life is no longer worth living, that they are useless and good for nothing.

Members may be able to imagine regularly experiencing this kind of discourse directed toward them, the kind of extreme stereotyping and presumption that the famous playwright George Bernard Shaw defended in 1931. In his defence of eugenics, Shaw said, “I don't want to punish anybody, but there are an extraordinary number of people whom I want to kill, not in any unkind or personal spirit, but it must be evident to all of you, you all must know half a dozen people at least who are no use in this world, who are more trouble than they are worth.”

There is a direct line between arguments about eugenics and uselessness presented by people like Shaw and the gas chambers, to which many with disabilities and others deemed “more trouble than they are worth” were ultimately consigned. The implication of some utilitarians is that people and things are to be valued based on their usefulness rather than on their inherent qualities. This way of thinking is wrong and dangerous, because it degrades people to something less than the bearers of inherent rights and instead regards them as mere tools for some other purpose.

As a friend once told me, “My greatest suffering doesn't come from my disability. It comes from trying to live up to the ideal of independence. It has taken time to realize that I am valuable for who I am and not just what I can do.”

Moreover, it is always incorrect to think of any person as useless. Every person bears the capacity to shape the world through their love and connection with others. The process of losing some capacities and developing others can be a difficult and painful transition, but it remains true that all human beings have the power and the capacity to shape the world around them in meaningful ways at all stages of life and at all levels of ability.

Many of us will experience this transition. The community of those with disabilities is one that many of us will join later in life. It is very likely that I will one day be living with disabilities, as will many of those currently able-bodied who are listening.

I ask members of the House to reflect on what it would be like to be treated as if their life was without value or meaning. They likely would know, at least initially, that this was not true. They would know that they have meaning and power and significance and the will and ability to be part of a community in which they both give and receive love and care. However, the constant, contrary implication, especially from those in power who are supposed to be helping, would be wearing and painful. At some point, because of the social context in which all choices are made, someone might start to believe and accept these lies and contemplate things that they would never have contemplated before.

I know that there are some people who deny that this sort of dehumanization happens at all. They are like the people who suppose that racism must not exist because they have never experienced it. If someone is not part of a victim community in question, chances are that they have less familiarity with the phenomenon, but people who doubt these realities need only to open up and listen.

Listen first to Miriam Lancaster, a woman from Vancouver in her eighties. Last year around this time, she woke up with severe back pain and was taken to hospital. Miriam was immediately offered MAID. Before any tests, diagnosis or discussion of symptoms, someone took one look at her and asked if she had thought about dying. Miriam made a full recovery. Six weeks later, she was walking her daughter down the aisle. I understand that her daughter joins us on the Hill today.

Miriam just celebrated another birthday. In the intervening time, she has travelled the world and even climbed a volcano on horseback.

There are many more of these stories. Meet David Baltzer, a Canadian hero from St. Catharines who did two tours of duty in Afghanistan. While struggling with a post-traumatic stress injury, he called Veterans Affairs Canada for help. Instead of receiving the help he was seeking, he received the unprompted suggestion of facilitated death.

Consider the story of Heather Hancock, a successful author living with cerebral palsy who had every desire to keep living. She was told by a nurse that she should do the right thing and consider MAID. The nurse told her that she was being selfish and that she was not living but merely existing.

There is the well-known case of Christine Gauthier, another heroic former member of the Canadian Armed Forces, and a Paralympian, an accomplished, successful, powerful woman who was simply fighting for a home wheelchair ramp. Instead of giving her the equipment she needed in order to live, bureaucrats proposed facilitated death and offered her the equipment for that instead.

Meet Kathrin Mentler. She faced mental health challenges and wanted to become a counsellor in order to help others. The Tyee reported on how she was treated in the midst of crisis:

Mentler found herself in crisis and took herself to Vancouver General Hospital's Access and Assessment Centre to get help.

“That day my goal was to keep myself safe.”...she says

Mentler says she told the counsellor she was scared she’d “never not feel horrible.” She also [discussed] her history of mental illness and self-harm.

Mentler says the counsellor then told her the mental health system was “completely overwhelmed,”...

“It was pretty disheartening and made me feel helpless,” Mentler says. “I’m coming here because I’m looking for help and you’re telling me there is no help.”

That’s when the counsellor [suggested to] Mentler [that she consider] medically assisted suicide.

Mentler says she was “shocked” and “sickened” because she came to the Access and Assessment Centre for help, “not for recommendations on how to kill myself.”

These stories are not one-offs. They reflect the regular experience of many people with mental health challenges and with disabilities here in Canada, and also the experience of some people who are aging, as they interact with the health care system and other systems that are supposed to be providing them with services. As Krista Carr from Inclusion Canada told the finance committee, “People with disabilities are now very much afraid, in many circumstances, to show up in the health care system with regular health concerns.” She later identified that she heard complaints from people with disabilities on a weekly basis about this problem.

This is the sad reality of what has come to happen in our Canadian society. People with challenges but also with immense potential and capacity are repeatedly being told when they try to access unrelated public services that they should die instead. On their behalf, I am begging colleagues in the House to listen to these cries for help and to work constructively on solutions.

Moved and angered by these stories, I have brought forward Bill C-260, a bill that would begin the vitally necessary process of affirming the dignity of the human person confronted by MAID coercion.

The current law allows people to pursue MAID, and it defines who can provide MAID, but the law is completely silent on the question of who can propose MAID. Due to this gap in the law, anyone can propose MAID: a counsellor, social worker, teacher, professor, parole officer, veterans services worker or CRA call centre employee. Literally anyone in a position of authority could tell a person seeking help that maybe they should die instead.

This gap in the law has left the door wide open for people who are seeking unrelated public services, who do not want to die, to have death repeatedly pushed on them, simply because of characteristics like age or disability. My bill seeks to begin the necessary process of filling this gap in the law by proposing legal limitations on what MAID and when MAID should be proposed to a person seeking public services.

Now, my bill is narrow in scope. It provides that a person cannot have MAID proposed to them by a bureaucrat in a case where they have not first asked for information about it. It only applies in cases involving a government employee in a position of authority or trust, and it exempts doctors and nurses. In cases where a bureaucrat in a position of authority or trust proposes MAID to a person who is not seeking it, Bill C-260 introduces a new Criminal Code offence, punishable on summary conviction. The penalty is minimal. The goal is not to punish people but to establish a standard and deter behaviour so that people with disabilities, the elderly and all Canadians can access public services without being treated as useless or expendable.

This bill is indeed modest. It starts a conversation and it establishes a minimum standard, something that all members of Parliament, I hope, should be able to get behind. If people do not think that Veterans Affairs Canada, caseworkers and other bureaucrats should be, out of the blue, proposing MAID to those who are seeking access to other public services, then please vote for Bill C-260 at second reading.

Since tabling this bill, I have had a lot of conversations with veterans, people with disabilities and groups that represent them. Many people are very supportive of this bill. The biggest complaint I have heard about Bill C-260 is from those in these communities who say that the bill does not go far enough. MAID coercion is a massive problem for these communities and the bill's limitations and exemptions, particularly the blanket exemption for doctors and nurses, leave open the possibility for MAID coercion to continue in many contexts.

Now, from my end, I actually completely agree with those who would like this bill to go further. I agree that this bill does not address every instance of MAID coercion, and that there are many instances of coercive behaviour involving those who are not included in this bill. I also see this bill as a meaningful step forward. Today, people with certain characteristics are bombarded with the suggestion that they die, suggestions potentially coming from anyone and everyone who is responsible for offering them public services. My bill would significantly narrow the number of instances in which these suggestions can be made. It is an important step because it reduces that pressure and introduces a new concept into law, providing additional protection, even if it leaves certain kinds of situations unaddressed.

Bill C-260 does not seek to prohibit all conduct that is problematic or potentially problematic. It does not pretend to. However, the scope of this bill is designed to respond to the realities of this Parliament. I cannot pass a bill without at least some votes on the government's side. I have proposed therefore a bill that I believe is realistically calibrated to the sentiments here and a bill that would have a chance of helping us take a step towards confronting this problem.

I would also note that action to confront MAID coercion involving licensed professionals like doctors and nurses is possible at the provincial level. I was very pleased to see the passage of Bill 18 in Alberta, for example, which goes further than Bill C-260 by using provincial jurisdiction over health care to introduce protections which likely would not receive enough support to pass at the federal level. I want to congratulate justice minister Mickey Amery and all who have made this happen. Alberta is a safer place for all people as a result of their work.

I hope that legislators in other provinces will join the fight against MAID coercion with their own provincial changes. Every legislator must look realistically at the chances of getting something passed in the place where they serve. Some provincial environments provide an easier context for more action. I hope that these opportunities will exist here in the near future, but I am doing my best with what we have for the time being.

The work of a legislator is always to try to turn their visions of an ideal society into practical and incremental steps towards a better world. I would like to see a society in which the dignity of the human person is always recognized and defended, but piling all aspects of such a vision into one piece of legislation is not the most productive way to move forward in the real world. Still, there is always the possibility of amendments that remove or adjust exemptions, and I will be supportive of those amendments as long as they do not imperil the bill as a whole. I invite those, who wish we had gone further, to support us at second reading and to make their case for those amendments when we come to committee. However, we need to win this vote in order for us to have that opportunity.

This is where high principle meets the world of practical politics until, perhaps, the configuration of Parliament allows us to do more. For my part, I will always defend the immutable dignity of the human person: the simple idea that human rights are for humans, including the elderly, the sick, those with mental health challenges, those with disabilities, the very old and the very young. This is something that a truly just society must ultimately recognize.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs and Associate Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, on this side of the House, we believe in evidence-based decision-making as opposed to decision-based evidence-making. We heard language like “often unsolicited offers of death” and people being “bombarded with requests”. We heard several anecdotes that came well short, in my view, of coercion, but we only heard anecdotes.

My question for this member is this. This is proposing an amendment to the Criminal Code of Canada. What is the evidentiary basis? Is there anything more than second- and third-hand, unproven anecdotal stories?

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am very surprised to hear the parliamentary secretary for veterans affairs speak in this way given the preponderance of testimony we have heard on this subject. He should know that the veterans affairs committee has heard from many veterans who have raised this concern. They have highlighted friends of theirs who have had the same issues who are afraid to speak out, for understandable reasons. We have had many instances involving multiple different caseworkers in different provinces where these concerns have been brought forward. I mentioned testimony from Inclusion Canada that weekly hears complaints from people living with disabilities who bring these issues forward.

I would say this as well to the parliamentary secretary. He is wrong, but let us suppose that he is right, let us say this happens very rarely, my bill says it should not happen at all. Therefore, even if he thinks this does not happen very often, then he should still support the bill, because it prevents this from happening in the cases where it does.

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to my colleague's speech. The intent of the bill is to amend the Criminal Code to make it an offence for certain people, in an end-of-life situation, to initiate a discussion about all the options available to a person who is suffering. This is based on discussions. Instead of the offence being based on an employee's behaviour, something else should be done. There are people everywhere, maybe even here, who would not be beyond reproach, yet this bill would amend the Criminal Code to make that an offence. It makes no sense.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I will explain again what the bill does. Those in positions of authority who are not doctors and nurses, that is, who are not supposed to be involved in the provision of MAID at all, are not to bring up MAID to a person who has not asked for information about it. If one is calling Veterans Affairs Canada, visiting their parole officer, consulting with a professor or meeting with a social worker and seeking help for unrelated services, and out of the blue that service provider tells that person that they should pursue MAID, this bill says that is inappropriate. If the members of the Bloc do not agree with it, they are welcome to vote however they like on this bill. However, I think most Canadians would say that it is common sense that if one calls Veterans Affairs Canada asking for help getting a stairlift, and the person on the other end of the line who is in a position of authority says they cannot get that stairlift for them, but asks if they have ever thought about dying instead, that is inappropriate. That should not be happening. The fact that it happens a lot means it should be stopped.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his work and his advocacy for the vulnerable. I do not think there is a stronger voice in this House for that, so I thank him very much.

I wonder if perhaps he could comment on some of the other groups that are supportive of his measures. He mentioned Inclusion Alberta, which is wonderful, but I wonder if he could mention some of the others. Apparently, people on the other side of the House think this is not an issue to be attended to.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to be transparent with the member that a lot of the feedback I have received from Canadians living with disabilities and organizations that represent them is that they want us to go much further. They would rather the bill did not have the exemptions it does and would like it to go much further. I am very sympathetic to that. I would like it to go much further as well, but I think we hear from the questions that we are still at a level where people in this House are struggling to listen to those with disabilities and even understand and appreciate that this is a problem at all. Therefore, I would encourage members to open their ears, to talk to people with disabilities in their communities and to understand the problems they are facing in this regard.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs and Associate Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, medical assistance in dying is deeply personal. It is also exceptionally complicated, with ethical, religious, constitutional and political elements. Members should make no mistake: Bill C-260 is the most recent instalment in the Conservative pattern of repeatedly sowing fear among communities of faith.

During last year's election campaign, many Canadians bought into the Conservative messaging that the Liberals planned to remove charitable status for faith-based organizations. This, of course, was not true and has never come to pass, but the fear stoked by it mobilized voters and donors. The mission was accomplished, I suppose. Off the success of that misinformation campaign, we witnessed the drawn-out spectacle of the debate with respect to the exemption for religious speech as hate speech, where logic and precedent had no place, only fear, hyperbole and, yes, fundraising.

Communities of faith deserve better. They deserve respect. They can handle the truth. They can appreciate and understand nuance.

Today, then, is the latest attempt to use anecdotes and either anonymous or unverified accusations to build a case designed with fear in mind and faith communities as the target. Members should make no mistake: Bill C-260 is a solution in search of a problem. Nowhere is this more true than in the allegations we just heard with respect to veterans.

As the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs, I can assure the House and all Canadians that the very foundation of Veterans Affairs Canada, its purpose, is to honour and commemorate those who have served in the Canadian Armed Forces and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and to ensure that they receive the support they need after leaving the military.

Veterans have dedicated their lives to serving our nation, sometimes at great personal sacrifice. Canada owes them respect and care, as well as a commitment to help them live in dignity after their service ends.

It must be understood that medical assistance in dying was never a Veterans Affairs Canada program or service, and that employees were never directed or encouraged to discuss the subject with veterans. It has never been that way. It will never be that way.

In 2022, when it was brought to the department's attention that a Veterans Affairs employee spoke inappropriately about medical assistance in dying, VAC immediately apologized to the veterans involved, launched a comprehensive investigation and put safeguards in place to prevent something similar from ever happening again, including but not limited to robust training and unambiguous expectations of conduct. Simply put, MAID is not and never will be a policy of Veterans Affairs Canada. The investigation reviewed over 400,000 files dating back to 2016. It found that the inappropriate statements were not indicative of a systemic problem; rather, they were isolated incidents involving a single employee who raised the issue four separate times. That person is no longer employed at Veterans Affairs Canada.

If someone seeks advice on or assistance with medical assistance in dying, employees are trained to refer them to their primary care provider, as they do with respect to any other request for medical guidance. These measures, communicated clearly in writing and supported by ongoing training, reinforce VAC's commitment to providing veterans and their families with high-quality, respectful and appropriate support while maintaining strict boundaries regarding medical assistance in dying. Understanding the concerns, circumstances, needs and wishes of individual veterans allows VAC staff to then advise them on all of the benefits, services and programs for which they may be eligible.

Frontline staff also receives training on how to de-escalate difficult situations with clients and report significant incidents that require further attention. This ensures that any inappropriate comments are dealt with immediately. Training for employees who interact with veterans and their families includes official courses and structured on-the-job training.

Discussions and consultations with subject matter experts will help to reinforce the knowledge and skills of Veterans Affairs Canada employees as they carry out their duties. The department also sends regular reminders to frontline staff to ensure that expectations are clearly understood.

What is more, Veterans Affairs Canada provides additional on-the-job training specifically for case managers. These employees work directly, one-on-one, with veterans and their families to assess their needs and objectives, identify challenges and develop plans to help them access the information and services they need.

Before interacting with clients, case managers must pass an intensive seven-week course. This practical, interactive learning experience allows them to learn while working with active, real-life cases as opposed to scenarios. The result is that case managers can hit the ground running, delivering services to veterans in as timely a manner as possible. Despite all of this, there are still moments when a veteran may raise the issue of medical assistance in dying. VAC officials are trained to explain the implications of such a decision on their families.

If a veteran has chosen to pursue medical assistance in dying with their primary care provider and shares this information with a member of the veteran service team, VAC staff can support the veteran in navigating benefits and services that are available. Support can include resource coordination and navigation, such as connecting a veteran and their family to community resources, mental health practitioners, grief counsellors, pastoral outreach or other local resources. It also includes a broad range of supports to help veterans and their families adjust to life after service.

If there are veterans who need help, I encourage them to contact Veterans Affairs Canada. One of Veterans Affairs Canada's core priorities is, and always will be, to provide practical and compassionate services to ensure that veterans have access to services tailored to their specific needs. These services include programs designed to promote physical health and well-being, as well as rehabilitation services. Medical costs, as well as compensation for service-related illnesses or injuries, may be covered by Veterans Affairs Canada.

I can assure members that every interaction with veterans is designed to help them thrive in life after service. Frontline staff at Veterans Affairs Canada undergo rigorous training to ensure they can guide clients to all the services, benefits, and programs to which they may be entitled.

High-quality compassionate support is a foundational part of the covenant our nation has with those who have worn the uniform. Ensuring that those who have served are served well is and always will be an unwavering commitment of this government.

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am deeply moved by the topic of our discussion. Allow me to explain why. I will start by asking those present and those watching at home to raise their hand if they have cared for someone at the end of their life who sought medical assistance in dying. We are not alone.

We can ask people who have lived through the experience and people who are as afraid of this word as they are of the name “Voldemort”. Some people are afraid of discussing death, but death is part of life. This evening, we are talking about a change to the Criminal Code and a serious offence because it involves talking about death. That is exactly the issue.

I would like to look back over Quebec's experience. The Parti Québécois opened the debate on medical assistance in dying back in 2012, as my colleagues will remember. Not only was it a human-centred process, it involved a highly collegial approach to human dignity. I want to commend Véronique Hivon for setting partisanship aside. Today, that approach is paying off.

In 2014, three years before my father passed away, the minister of health and social services, Gaétan Barrette, was spearheading this file with Ms. Hivon. All parties in the National Assembly reached an agreement, because they showed a willingness to understand. No one can understand what the individual is going through. Even I cannot understand, and I lived this experience for 20 years.

Quebec is not alone. MAID is also available in Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, Colombia, Spain, Switzerland, Austria, Portugal and several of the U.S. states, to name just a few. Some of those places have had it for decades.

I would like to share my own story. It will make it clear that our issue is not with proposing a change to the Criminal Code. In 1997, I was very, very young. I still am, but that will not last forever. In 1997, we received devastating news. My father was diagnosed with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. Those who knew Mauril Bélanger, who was a member of the House of Commons, know that it can progress very quickly.

In my case, in our family's case, it lasted 20 years. Over the course of 20 years, my father gradually lost his ability to move and take care of himself, and he had to rely on others. I had many discussions with my father. We never had an inclination to talk about the reality of what happens to all of us, that is, that we are born, we live and then we die. When the time came, when his physical and psychological suffering became unbearable, it made perfect sense to talk about it, but it was still extremely difficult.

Here is what I learned. I could not imagine losing my father, who was of sound mind but was suffering. He was the one who told me that we needed to talk about it and learn what options were available.

I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, but this is a very sensitive subject for me, and I can hear people having conversations. If they want to discuss medical assistance in dying, we can talk about it later outside the House—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

I am going to interrupt the hon. member for a moment.

For colleagues who may not be listening to the interpretation, I would just that, if they are having conversations, to take them into the lobby.

The hon. member for Laurentides—Labelle may continue her speech.

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we all have different abilities to focus. I tend to hear everything and see everything. It may be a character flaw, but noise bothers me. Members do not have to listen, but I would ask them to be quiet.

I will continue by sharing what I experienced and what I have seen over the past few years. I hope that my colleague who introduced this bill has had the opportunity to openly discuss the scope of the issue we are talking about. If someone is pushed to seek MAID as a way to escape suffering, that is of course unacceptable. We all agree on that.

However, in this case, the bill seeks to punish someone for having a discussion about possible care options that a person may turn to over the course of their life. That is something else entirely. We should be examining the behaviour of certain people who are supposed to show compassion to those at the end of life but who engage in unacceptable behaviour, such as systematically suggesting MAID on the grounds that the person seems to no longer be able to endure their suffering, as if we could simply offer them a way out. It is not as simple as that. I have experienced it. Those who raised their hands earlier have experienced it too.

There is a problem, and I hope that we will really take care of it. We are talking about treatment and care. We have been hearing about this for quite some time. The Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs is currently studying the partners in Canadian veterans rehabilitation services program. Right now, we are learning that some specialists do not have what it takes to support veterans, because they do not understand the realities, the trauma or the wait times veterans face. Some veterans have to wait three years.

I can understand when someone comes to the point where they are no longer able to endure what they went through after serving their country. They were told that they mattered, they dared to defend their homeland to the point of risking their own life, and then when they came home, they were told to take a number because they could not be served right away.

We are currently assessing whether the program is worthwhile and whether the service providers have the skills to meet the standard that veterans deserve. I think it is truly unfortunate that another tactic is being used today to avoid addressing the core issue. A committee is currently meeting. If we can speak openly together, people will understand that this bill makes no sense if the goal is truly to hold those who act maliciously toward people at the end of life accountable.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Airdrie—Cochrane, AB]

Mr. Speaker, sometimes when we debate bills such as this, we are debating a problem that could exist in the future or that may exist. In this case, that is not at all what we are talking about. We are talking about something that is not a hypothetical problem. We are talking about something that has happened and is happening to veterans in this country.

This is something that was raised quite publicly a few years ago. It was shocking and appalling, frankly, to have heard the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs stand in this House just a few minutes ago and say that this is a solution in search of a problem. He knows full well, and the government over there knows full well, that this has happened to veterans in this country. The men and women who bravely served this country are looking for help in order to live their lives. Instead, they have been asked if they have considered medical assistance in dying. I have heard from countless veterans who have told me that they, or others they know, have been offered this kind of thing.

When this veterans scandal broke a few years ago, the Liberals' response at the time, to something that I would say is a very massive scandal, frankly, was to say that they investigated themselves and it was just one public servant, whom they then fired. We heard the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs, not too long ago, say that they put in place measures to ensure that this would never happen again, and that is it. They just washed their hands. That is great; all is wonderful.

However, the problem with this is that it contradicts the testimony and the claims of several other veterans who, both before and since, have claimed that they were also offered medical assistance in dying by different public servants. This includes being offered MAID by bureaucrats who were male, despite the government claiming it was only one female employee who had gone rogue, apparently.

Despite the government claiming that this issue has been put to rest, we put forward an Order Paper question, which returned a few months ago and revealed that there were behind-the-scenes lawsuits by families whose loved ones were, in fact, offered MAID by the Government of Canada, and that there was even a settlement paid and non-disclosure agreements signed. Do lawsuits, settlements and non-disclosure agreements sound like this issue has been put to rest? I think not.

We can establish the following three things. First, Canadians, certainly veterans, do not trust the Liberal government. Second, the Liberals have been far less than honest about the scope and prevalence of this issue. Third, they already had bureaucrats who were pushing medical assistance in dying on veterans who did not wish to have it, and veterans are continuing to raise the alarm that this issue is still occurring.

At the very least, we can dismiss the Liberal talking points that this issue has been put to rest and that there is no need for this legislation. On the one hand, Canadians have the Liberals' claims that this has stopped, despite the evidence to the contrary. On the other hand, we have dozens of veterans who are coming forward and pleading for help.

I will just engage for a moment in hypotheticals. Let us suppose the Liberals were telling the truth, that this issue was simply a rogue public servant and that they are entirely opposed to offering MAID to Canada's veterans. If this were the case, then they should be happily supporting this legislation, as it would codify what they claim to believe, which is that public servants should not be pushing euthanasia on veterans who do not wish to have it, especially those who are vulnerable and looking for help. In every case that I have heard about, that is exactly the situation that we are talking about here.

The Liberals like to claim, and we heard it even here today in the House, that this issue is just being manufactured, that veterans are making this up and that opposition MPs are making this up. They cite the fact that no veteran has approached them to reveal that these cases are happening. What they are failing to consider is that the dozens of veterans who have reached out to me and others concerning this issue are completely terrified of the retribution they will face if they come out publicly. This is not something they are imagining in their minds, because it has happened.

When these veterans are implored to come forward, they can easily look to the case of Christine Gauthier, a veteran and a Canadian Paralympian who bravely went public about being offered medical assistance in dying in 2022 when she was simply asking for help to get wheelchair access to her home. As a result of not having this, she would literally have to drag herself across a gravel driveway, because she is in a wheelchair, and up a couple of flights of stairs to get into her home. Instead of offering her the wheelchair access that she was looking for, the government said to her, “How about we offer you medical assistance in dying instead?”

After that story went across this country, and after Christine came to the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs to tell her story, she was targeted by the government, which made her life a living hell. In the end it was other veterans groups, despite promises that were made by the Liberal government, that had to raise funds to build her a wheelchair access, because Veterans Affairs was refusing to process any of her claims.

Christine showed up at committee with a suitcase full of paperwork that Veterans Affairs had forced upon her as an excuse not to provide her with the help she needed. It offered her medical assistance in dying instead when she was not seeking it. She claimed that the burden VAC was putting on her and the difficulties it brought upon her were worse than any injury she had sustained.

How can the Liberals smugly sit there and say that they will not act unless veterans come forward, when the last veteran who did come forward was subjected to years of administrative abuse and sanctuary trauma by the very department she called out? It is clear that the Liberals cannot be trusted to have veterans' best interests in mind.

I would like to touch on veterans issues just a little more, because it is not just about this issue. In the time the Liberals have been in power, there have been nine different ministers of Veterans Affairs, and some of those ministers served in the role for only a few months before being shuffled on, which makes things clear to veterans. They see how unseriously the role of minister of Veterans Affairs is being treated and how it is treated as a secondary role for Liberals.

All nine of those ministers claimed they would eliminate backlogs and would make sure veterans are helped, and that this would be their top priority, but in all cases those backlogs continued to increase. In fact 90% of the claims that are denied by Veterans Affairs are then later approved, decided in the veteran's favour, when they go to the Veterans Review and Appeal Board, which tells us that there is something clearly wrong with what is going on there. It is like an effort to deny veterans the help they deserve.

There is clearly a systemic issue, and ultimately it takes many years for most veterans to go through the whole appeals process. I think there is an attempt to frighten veterans off so the government does not have to pay them. Veterans often talk about a triple-D policy: delay, deny, die. Their claims are delayed, then their claims are denied, and what is really happening is that the government is hoping they will just go away and give up the fight.

Now, to make matters worse, officials are even offering to help with their death. No matter what one thinks about medical assistance in dying as a policy, I think we should all be able to agree that it should not be offered or pushed on those who do not want it, and that is what the bill would ensure. The bill seeks to make sure that people who do not wish to have medical assistance in dying do not have it pushed on them by government bureaucrats. Veterans should not have these kinds of things done to them when they are seeking help to live their lives. They should not instead be offered medical assistance in dying.

That is what the bill would do. It is all it would do. I hope all members will support it, because it is right for veterans and right for all Canadians.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

Resuming debate, we will go to the hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader. I will just inform the member that I will have to cut him off towards the end of his speech.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

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

Mr. Speaker, as you can see, there is a great sense of disappointment from across the way. I am sure we could arrange to have unanimous consent so I would be able to finish the entire speech.

Having said that, I am a bit discouraged by the member who just spoke because he is trying to give a false impression. There are two issues that I would like to address: the very serious issue of MAID and the very serious issue of veterans.

I had the honour and privilege of serving in the Canadian Forces for just over three years. All of my postings were here in Canada, but I did walk side by side with World War II veterans in parades and had discussions in the legions immediately following the parades, as well as elsewhere. I can tell those who are following the debate that individuals will always carry their own personal opinions in regard to veterans, but to try to label the Government of Canada or the Prime Minister as anti-veteran does a great disservice.

If members want to make a comparison, I am all game. I sat in opposition when the leader of the Conservative Party of today was part of the group that cut nine Veterans Affairs offices in Canada. There were no apologies, no sincere, “We have to do this” or anything like that. There was no justification. It took having an election and having the then prime minister, Harper at the time, no longer in office to fix it. One of our first actions was to reinstate those Veterans Affairs offices that the Conservatives closed.

I have often seen members across the way try to argue a case that is just not true. We give the deepest amount of respect to the veterans of Canada. We recognize the valuable sacrifice that they have made for our nation. They are, in part, what make us the great nation that we are. I just want to be very clear on that particular point.

The parliamentary secretary who spoke prior to me talked about the report that shows that the department took an interest in the issue when it was brought to its attention. In fact, there was a consequence to it, and the department looked into the tens of thousands of files. We need to make sure that, as a government, we are clear that that sort of behaviour, for which the employee was released, is not acceptable. We made it very clear that there is zero tolerance for that sort of attitude.

Let us go now to the issue of MAID. Over the years, I have appreciated the different types of debates that take place on the floor of the House of Commons. They vary significantly. I recall the discussions that surrounded the MAID debate. Those who were around will know full well the degree to which the House took the issue seriously. They know of the many mechanisms that were put into place so that we could hear from professionals and from the many individuals experiencing having to make very difficult decisions, whether they were the individual having a medical issue, a family member or a very close friend. Members know of the many hours that were put in at the standing committee and of the overflow of emotions at the standing committee, from all political parties.

One of the first issues that we had to deal with when we came into government back in 2015 was the need to bring in MAID legislation because of a Supreme Court decision. I can recall very clearly when we had members standing up on all sides of the House, in tears, talking about personal experiences or reflecting on what was taking place in our standing committees.

I believe every single member who has been part of that debate, from the very beginning to this moment today, feels no one should ever feel pressured into a decision about their own health. This is something all of us agree on.

This is a very personal decision. We should respect and look to those individuals who have the expertise, the understanding and the compassion. Human life is the most valuable thing we have. I would think that every member of Parliament, no matter what side of the House they are on, understands and appreciates that and would make decisions based on the information that has been put on the table and ultimately on the consensus that has been built.

Our courts have been very clear: As parliamentarians, we have a responsibility. Part of that responsibility is to work with other jurisdictions. We can establish laws, but we also need to recognize that provinces have a critical role to play. In fact, it is often a starting point when it goes to a court or a superior court. For example, there is the Province of Quebec and a follow-up decision that came after we had actually passed the legislation.

As a government, we have looked at ways we can review and have been open to the idea of changes, if needed. This is not something we should be taking lightly. At the end of the day, I believe it is about listening and responding in a loving, caring way. It is about doing the right thing.

In previous debates, we heard a lot about issues like hospice care, palliative care and the types of disability supports that exist. These are all things that were part of the original discussions and that continue to be discussed. We should continue to work at improving the conditions, but that means working with other jurisdictions like the provinces, which are responsible for the administration of health care. There are a lot of things we can do on this issue.

I need to wind up, so I will leave it at that for now.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

The time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired, and the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the Order Paper.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Riding Mountain, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is always an honour to do the late show. I want to begin with a brief comment, given that we are discussing the work of the health committee. We just received word that the CEO and president of Canada Health Infoway, Michael Green, has been fired by the Infoway board. As Canadians are finding out, Canada Health Infoway is a taxpayer-funded organization the Liberals funnelled $300 million through to run the failed PrescribeIT program.

This news comes just hours after Conservatives uncovered that Mr. Green pocketed over $830,000 in taxpayer-funded compensation last year, which included a maximum performance bonus of over $215,000. The only reason Michael Green was fired from Canada Health Infoway is that Conservatives exposed the Liberals' $300-million PrescribeIT failure. The health minister had every tool to audit and evaluate Infoway, but instead she let the CEO of a failing program pocket millions in taxpayer-funded compensation, including maximum performance bonuses. Conservatives will not stop investigating PrescribeIT until we find out where every dollar went and who else got rich.

We are not here to discuss the $300-million PrescribeIT scandal, though. We are here to discuss the $1.5-billion interim federal health program scandal. Thanks to my colleague from Red Deer, Conservatives have uncovered that the Liberals have spent more than $275 million on health benefits for asylum seekers whose claims were rejected by the government's own Immigration and Refugee Board. According to the Liberal government, rejected asylum claimants remain eligible for deluxe health benefits like physiotherapy, home care and speech therapy.

As such, my question is simple. Does the Liberal member believe it is fair that a rejected asylum claimant receives better taxpayer-funded health benefits than the Canadians who are paying for them?

[Maggie Chi, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians rightly expect public programs to be fair, responsible and sustainable. They expect that when people are seeking protection in Canada but are not eligible for provincial or territorial health insurance, the government manages that transition in a way that protects public health while maintaining the integrity of our health care system. That is the role of the interim federal health program, a program that has existed in some form since the 1940s.

The IFHP provides temporary limited health coverage to certain migrants in Canada who are not eligible for provincial or territorial health insurance, including those who are waiting for a final decision on their asylum claims or for their removal to be safely carried out. The program exists to ensure access to urgent and essential services. Without it, vulnerable people may delay seeking care, which can lead to more serious health issues, higher costs later on and added pressure on emergency rooms and public health. That is why the program must be understood as both a public health measure and a system management tool.

Let me be clear. The IFHP does not determine who is ahead or behind on health care wait-lists. Those decisions are made by provinces and territories based on medical needs. IFHP beneficiaries face the same wait times as all other residents. The IFHP provides health coverage, not faster or better access to health care. Moreover, the health needs of those seeking protection in Canada are important principles behind the program, and those who have filed asylum claims have the right to due process, which includes the right to appeal.

The IFHP is tightly managed. All claims are monitored, audited and subject to integrity controls so that the program remains available only to those who qualify. Pressures on the IFHP are largely driven by higher asylum claim volumes and the length of time people remain in the system while awaiting a decision or removal. That is why our government has also taken action to reduce pressures on the asylum system. These actions are working.

Comparing January and February 2024 to the same period this year, asylum claims are down by almost two-thirds, and with Bill C-12, we introduced new eligibility and efficiency improvements, which will reduce the time individuals rely on temporary federal support. We also announced co-payments in budget 2025 to help keep supplemental health care accessible for eligible beneficiaries while responsibly managing growing demand. This will support the long-term sustainability of the program as it continues providing essential support to current and future beneficiaries. The co-pays, set to come into effect on May 1, could result in approximately $126.8 million in savings in 2026-27 and $231.9 million onwards.

In short, the responsible way forward is not to create confusion about who is ahead in line. Instead, we need to keep the IFHP targeted and well managed to avoid increasing the burden on our publicly funded health system while reducing pressures through stronger system integrity and faster processing. That is exactly what our government is doing.

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Riding Mountain, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal member did not answer my question, so I will ask it again.

Does the parliamentary secretary for health believe it is fair that rejected asylum claimants receive better taxpayer-funded health benefits than those Canadians who are paying for them, yes or no?

[Maggie Chi, Liberal, Don Valley North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the interim federal health program provides temporary limited coverage until beneficiaries are eligible for a comparable provincial or territorial health insurance. It is a bridge, not a substitute, and it does not determine placement on health care wait-lists, which are managed from provinces and territories based on medical needs. Without that bridge, vulnerable individuals may delay seeking care, which can increase the risk to public health and wait times in hospitals and emergency rooms. In this way, the IFHP actually helps reduce pressure on our health system. The program is tightly managed and only available to those who qualify.

Comparing January and February 2024 to the same period this year, we also see that asylum claims are down by almost two-thirds. Recent measures and legislation such as Bill C-12 ensure the IFHP remains fair, targeted and sustainable.